In the case of William R. Pounders, Judge, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County v. Penelope Watson (1996), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Judge Pounders by a unanimous decision. The court held that judges are immune from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction even if those actions were done maliciously or corruptly; this is known as absolute judicial immunity. The case arose when Penelope Watson sued Judge Pounders under federal civil rights law after he ordered her to be handcuffed and removed from his courtroom during a contentious divorce proceeding where she was representing herself pro se (without an attorney). She claimed that these actions violated her constitutional rights and sought monetary damages against him personally. However, the Supreme Court upheld previous rulings stating that judges cannot be held liable for their decisions made while performing their duties unless they acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of William R. Pounders, Judge, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County v. Penelope Watson (1996), Justice Stevens argued that judicial immunity should not extend to judges who make statements outside their official capacity and use their position to influence proceedings inappropriately. He contended that when a judge uses his or her authority to interfere with an individual's constitutional rights without any legitimate legal basis, they are acting beyond their jurisdiction and should be held accountable for such actions. In this particular case, he believed that Judge Pounders had overstepped his bounds by threatening Ms. Watson with jail time if she did not comply with certain conditions unrelated to her court proceedings - an act which was both inappropriate and potentially damaging to her due process rights.