In Imbler v. Pachtman, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits for damages under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act for actions related to their official duties. The case arose when Paul Imbler was convicted of murder in California and later claimed his conviction resulted from false testimony knowingly used by prosecutor Richard Pachtman. After his release, Imbler sued Pachtman for violation of his constitutional rights seeking monetary compensation. However, the court held that a state prosecuting attorney who acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution was not amenable to suit at common law on account of allegedly malicious, fraudulent or dishonest action taken therein; hence he is likewise immune from liability under Section 1983 for such conduct.

In the dissenting opinion for Imbler v. Pachtman, Justice White argued that prosecutors should not have absolute immunity from civil suits when they act in their administrative or investigative roles. He believed that this level of protection could potentially lead to abuses of power and a lack of accountability for misconduct. Instead, he suggested a qualified immunity approach where prosecutors would be protected only if they acted in good faith and with probable cause. This way, victims of prosecutorial misconduct would still have legal recourse while prosecutors wouldn't be deterred from performing their duties due to fear of litigation.