Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the government may not be sued without its consent. The concept flows from the common-law notion that the “the king can do no wrong” and that a lawsuit could not be brought against him in his own courts. 

Oklahoma, like other states, generally enjoys sovereign immunity, meaning the state and its political subdivisions are immune from liability for torts. However, the State does allows individuals to sue for certain torts, but it's important to note that the waiver of immunity is not absolute and has specific limitations and exceptions provided by the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA)51 O.S. § 151 et seq. The Oklahoma Bar Association [in 2022]published an article on how the GTCA "balances" competing interests and mentions the more than 35 exemptions from waiver of liability.

The Judicial Immunity doctrine protects judges from civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages for actions taken while performing their judicial duties. 

Purpose of Judicial Immunity:

It's designed to ensure judges can make decisions impartially and without fear of personal repercussions, thus preserving the independence of the judiciary. Judges have absolute immunity for actions taken within their judicial capacity, even if those actions are alleged to be erroneous or malicious. 

Exceptions:

Judicial immunity does not extend to actions taken outside of a judge's judicial capacity or when acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. 

Judges are immune from damages liability under § 1983 unless they have violated a declaratory decree.

Case Law on Declaratory Decrees in § 1983 Actions

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984) – Held that judicial immunity does not bar prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against judges under § 1983.

Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (1985) – Clarified that declaratory relief under § 1983 is appropriate only when it addresses ongoing violations, not past harms.

Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) – Reinforced that declaratory relief must serve a legitimate prospective purpose in stopping future constitutional violations.

• Show a Clearly Established Right Was Violated

Plaintiffs must cite case law demonstrating that similar conduct was previously ruled unconstitutional.

The precedent must be from the Supreme Court, the relevant Circuit Court, or high state courts.

Example: In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Court ruled that shooting a fleeing, unarmed suspect without immediate danger violates the Fourth Amendment—so a similar shooting today would likely overcome immunity.

• Argue That the Violation Was Obvious

In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that some actions are so blatantly unconstitutional that a case directly on point isn’t needed.

If an official’s conduct is egregiously unlawful, courts may deny immunity even without a perfect case match.

• Use Pattern or Custom Evidence (Monell Claims)

If the official’s actions resulted from a policy, custom, or practice, the government entity (rather than the individual) may be liable under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

This can sidestep qualified immunity, which applies only to individuals. [More About Monell Claims].

• Challenge the Immunity Argument at the Right Stage

Qualified immunity is often decided early (at the motion to dismiss or summary judgment stage).  Plaintiffs can argue that factual disputes exist, preventing early dismissal (Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014)). Depositions, body cam footage, and other evidence can help disprove the officer’s version of events.

• Seek a Ruling from a Higher Court

If a district court grants immunity, appealing the decision to a Circuit Court can result in reversal. Supreme Court precedent has weakened some broad applications of qualified immunity (Taylor v. Riojas, 592 U.S. __ (2020), held that extreme prisoner mistreatment could defeat immunity without identical prior cases).