//

(Image via Getty)

Judges have a pretty cool gig. They rank very highly in job satisfaction, at least in part due to the fact that they get to call a lot of the shots in their day to day lives. There is of course the occasional limit, like not handcuffing small children to prove a point, or hearing cases they have a financial interest in.  You know what else has limits? Non-judges using quasi-judicial immunity as a carte blanche excuse to hire and fire whomever they want over spicy tweets. From the ABA Journal:

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

A federal appeals court has ruled that a Tennessee legal ethics lawyer who was fired for tweeting about Islam can seek damages against his former supervisor.

A lawyer who was under investigation by the board complained that the tweets demonstrated substantial bias against Muslims, which chief disciplinary counsel Sandra Garrett cited in her reasons for [Gerald Dean] Morgan’s firing.

In his lawsuit, Morgan argued that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and sought monetary damages. While Garrett argued that she was entitled to “absolute quasi-judicial immunity,” the 6th Circuit disagreed.

Sponsored Introducing Filevine’s 2023 Customer Benchmark Report Explore new data on how modern law firms are managing their work. From Filevine and Above The Law  

As tone deaf as Morgan’s tweets may have been, the really interesting question of this case is why Garrett thought that she had judicial immunity, quasi or otherwise, when it comes to hiring and firing.

“Though it is true that Garrett is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for her official judicial acts, it does not mean that she is entitled to immunity for all official acts,” the appeals court said. “After all, quasi-judicial immunity only extends the same immunity a judge would enjoy to nonjudicial officials performing tasks intertwined with the judicial process.”

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

That’s a lot. Thankfully, the court went on to clarify with an example for those of us that need a little help parsing through explanations.

The 6th Circuit noted that many other courts have determined that hiring and firing are administrative or executive—and not judicial—tasks.

“Judicial immunity, though absolute and firm, is something to be applied carefully and should not be extended further than its justification warrants,” the appeals court said. “Extending judicial immunity in this case would extend its reach to areas previously denied—namely administrative acts like hiring and firing employees.”

Sponsored Sponsored Navigating Economic Uncertainty: 6 Tips To Keep Your Investments On Track How you can get through current challenges while advancing long-term goals. From Trion Properties   Sponsored The Global Legal News You Need, When You Need It News and analysis from this company could be a game-changer for legal professionals working globally. From Ethan Beberness   Sponsored Introducing Filevine’s 2023 Customer Benchmark Report Explore new data on how modern law firms are managing their work. From Filevine and Above The Law   Sponsored The Global Legal News You Need, When You Need It News and analysis from this company could be a game-changer for legal professionals working globally. From Ethan Beberness  

Lesson learned. On the bright side, it is worth taking some solace in knowing that judicial immunity also has limits for judges. For example, every judge is free to decide — even to voice — their feigned disdain for a school and its culture. That doesn’t mean they are immune to Joe Patrice dunking on every subsequent thing they do. Life is about balance.

Ethics Lawyer Who Was Fired Over Tweets About Islam Can Pursue Damages, 6th Circuit Says [ABA Journal]

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at [email protected] and by tweet at @WritesForRent.

Sponsored Sponsored Why CRM Is An Essential Tech Tool For Law Firms In 2023 CRMs are powerful tools to help law firms grow and scale without needing more staff. Read on for a brief overview of the basic benefits… From Jan Hill   Sponsored You, Too, Can ‘Recession Proof’ Your Firm. Here’s How. With today’s practice management tech, it’s easier than you think. Download our free Practice Management Buyer’s Guide here. From Above the Law   Topics

6th Circuit, Courts, First Amendment, Legal Ethics, Quasi-Judicial Immunity, Religious Freedom, Twitter