October Term 2009 · Docket 08-1065
Can a prosecutor face a civil suit for fabricating evidence?
The dispute centers on whether prosecutors hold absolute immunity from civil liability for allegedly fabricating evidence.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Stephen Sanders argued that absolute immunity prevents suits against prosecutors for actions during judicial proceedings.
Nathan Katyal argued that a cause of action exists against prosecutors for fabricating evidence.
Paul Clement argued that the Court has already rejected liability for prosecutors in similar contexts.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 51-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 51-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-39 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Pottawattamie County and the state argue that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from civil suits for actions taken during judicial proceedings. McGhee contends that this immunity does not shield prosecutors from liability for fabricating evidence. The Court must determine if a cause of action exists against prosecutors for such conduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 51-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 51-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-39 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 23-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 4, 2009.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 45-7
What each side wants
Pottawattamie County wants the Court to affirm the dismissal of the civil suit against the prosecutor.
McGhee wants the Court to reverse the dismissal and allow the civil suit against the prosecutor to proceed.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 51-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 51-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-39 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 23-29
What each side says
Pottawattamie County argues that absolute immunity protects prosecutors from civil liability for actions taken during judicial proceedings, including evidence fabrication.
McGhee argues that absolute immunity does not protect prosecutors from civil liability for fabricating evidence, distinguishing this conduct from standard judicial functions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 51-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 51-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-39 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 23-29
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked if the legal analysis should be identical when a police officer or a prosecutor fabricates evidence.
Justice Scalia asked if the prosecutor would be treated just like a police officer in this context.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-11
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of civil liability for prosecutors. It determines whether citizens can sue prosecutors for fabricating evidence. The outcome shapes the balance between prosecutorial independence and individual accountability.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 51-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 51-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-39 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 23-29
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 51-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 51-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-39 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 51-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 51-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-39 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 23-29
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.