In the 1991 case of Raymond Mireles v. Howard Waco, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a judge was immune from prosecution for ordering police officers to use excessive force on an individual in his courtroom. The plaintiff, Raymond Mireles, alleged that Judge Howard Waco ordered two sheriff's deputies to forcibly bring him into his courtroom and that he suffered injuries as a result of their actions. The court ruled unanimously in favor of Judge Waco, stating that judges are entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts performed within their judicial jurisdiction even if such acts were done maliciously or corruptly; this is so because it is better to promote fearlessness and independence among judges than it would be to afford redress for injuries sustained by litigants due to possible abuses of power by those judges.

In the dissenting opinion for Raymond Mireles v. Howard Waco, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to grant absolute immunity to a judge who ordered police officers to use excessive force was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings. He contended that while judges should be protected from liability when acting within their judicial capacity, this protection should not extend to actions outside of their jurisdiction or those involving clear violations of established law. In his view, Judge Mireles' order clearly fell into these categories as it involved an act of violence against an individual in custody - something which is not part of any judge's official duties nor sanctioned by law. Therefore, he believed that Judge Mireles should be held accountable for his actions and denied immunity.