In the 1986 case of Cerbone, Justice of the Village Court, Village of Mt. Kisco, New York v. Conway, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to judicial immunity and civil rights violations. The petitioner was a village justice who had been sued by an individual (Conway) for allegedly violating his constitutional rights during a criminal proceeding in which he was acquitted. The lower courts denied Cerbone's claim that he should be immune from such suits due to his position as a judge. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court it was held that judges are indeed immune from liability for damages in civil rights actions concerning their judicial acts - even when such acts were alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly; thus reversing previous rulings and ruling in favor of Cerbone.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cerbone v. Conway argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting part-time judges from practicing law within their jurisdictions was an overreach and unnecessary intrusion into state affairs. The justices who dissented believed that there were already sufficient safeguards in place to prevent conflicts of interest, such as recusal rules and professional conduct standards for lawyers. They also pointed out that many small communities rely on part-time judges who maintain private practices due to limited resources, so this ruling could have significant negative impacts on these areas. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that simply appearing before another judge in the same jurisdiction created an appearance of impropriety or bias, arguing instead it is a common practice which does not inherently compromise judicial integrity or impartiality.