In the 1983 case of Pulliam v. Allen, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judicial immunity does not protect judges from being sued for injunctive relief or attorney's fees under federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C § 1983). The case arose when a Virginia magistrate judge, Larry Pulliam, was sued by two defendants who claimed he had violated their constitutional rights by setting excessive bail and jailing them without legal counsel present. The court held that while judges are generally immune from damages for acts performed in their judicial capacity, they can be subject to suits seeking prospective non-monetary relief such as injunctions if they act in clear absence of all jurisdiction or perform an act which is not typically performed by a judge. This ruling expanded the potential liability of state judges under federal law.

In the case of Pulliam v. Allen, the dissenting opinion argued that judicial immunity should extend to all actions taken by a judge within their jurisdictional capacity, regardless of whether those actions were in error or malicious. The dissenters believed that this protection is essential for judges to perform their duties without fear of personal liability and potential harassment through litigation. They also pointed out that there are other mechanisms in place for addressing judicial misconduct such as impeachment and removal from office, disciplinary proceedings before state commissions on judicial conduct, criminal prosecution for bribery or similar offenses and suits against states under federal civil rights laws where sovereign immunity has been waived. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's decision which held that judges could be liable for monetary damages under Section 1983 when they act in clear absence of all jurisdiction or enforcement authority.