In the case of Stump et al. v. Sparkman Et Vir, a mother petitioned for her "somewhat retarded" 15-year-old daughter to be sterilized without the daughter's knowledge or consent, alleging that she was promiscuous and did not understand the consequences of her actions. The judge approved this request without hearing from any medical professionals or notifying the girl in question. Two years later, when married and desiring children, she discovered what had been done to her and sued all parties involved including Judge Stump who authorized it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Judge Stump by a vote of 5-3 on grounds of judicial immunity - an established legal principle protecting judges from personal liability for their official actions even if those actions are alleged to have been made maliciously or corruptly; unless they acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction over subject matter and persons. This controversial decision sparked debate about judicial immunity's scope as well as ethical issues surrounding forced sterilization.

In the dissenting opinion for Stump et al. v. Sparkman Et Vir, Justice Byron White argued that Judge Harold D. Stump should not have been granted judicial immunity because his approval of a petition to sterilize a minor without her knowledge or consent was outside of his jurisdiction and violated her constitutional rights. He believed that such an act was clearly unconstitutional and did not fall within the judge's discretionary powers, thus he should be held accountable for it in court. Furthermore, Justice White contended that granting absolute immunity in this case would set a dangerous precedent by allowing judges to violate individuals' constitutional rights without fear of legal repercussions.