The U.S. Supreme Court case Butz, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. Glover Livestock Commission Co., Inc., 1972 revolved around the issue of whether federal administrative law judges (ALJs) are entitled to absolute immunity from damages for their judicial acts as regular federal judges do. The case was initiated by Glover Livestock Commission Company which alleged that a Department of Agriculture ALJ had conspired with others to put it out of business through biased rulings in an administrative proceeding against them for violating regulations governing meat packers and stockyards act. In its decision, the court held that these ALJs should indeed be granted absolute immunity from liability when acting in their official capacities, similar to other judges and prosecutors who enjoy such protection under common law tradition. This is because they perform functions very similar to those performed by traditional trial judges - presiding over adversarial hearings where evidence is presented and legal precedent applied - hence requiring independence without fear of personal liability.

In the dissenting opinion for Butz v. Glover Livestock Commission Co., Justice Douglas argued that federal officials should not be granted absolute immunity from damages resulting from constitutional violations committed within their authority's scope. He believed this would create a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to unchecked abuses of power by government officials without fear of legal repercussions. Instead, he proposed that these individuals should only receive qualified immunity, which would protect them in cases where they acted in good faith and with reasonable belief that their actions were lawful. This approach would balance the need to safeguard citizens' rights against unconstitutional conduct while still allowing public servants to perform their duties without constant fear of litigation.