The U.S. Supreme Court case Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., et al., 1977, revolved around the issue of whether a federal district judge could be held liable for damages resulting from his judicial actions in a bankruptcy proceeding. The plaintiff, Calvert Fire Insurance Company and others, alleged that Judge Hubert L. Will had violated their constitutional rights by improperly favoring one party over another during the proceedings. In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that judges are immune from such lawsuits under common law principles dating back to medieval England which protect them from personal liability for acts performed within their judicial jurisdiction - even if those acts were allegedly done maliciously or corruptly. This immunity is deemed necessary to ensure independent and impartial adjudication by protecting judges from intimidation or harassment through litigation brought by disgruntled litigants unhappy with a judge's decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, argued that federal judges should not be immune from liability in cases where they have acted outside their jurisdiction or with clear absence of all jurisdiction. They contended that judicial immunity should only apply when a judge has made an error within his/her legitimate scope of authority. The majority's decision to extend absolute immunity to judges even when acting beyond their jurisdiction was seen as a departure from precedent and contrary to the principle that no one is above the law. Furthermore, it was suggested this could potentially lead to abuses of power without any legal recourse for those affected by such actions.