On April 18, the Fifth Circuit ruled in Lampton v. Diaz that a prosecutor's filing of a judicial commission complaint (and the attachment of statutorily confidential documents to that complaint) were not actions protected by absolute immunity from suit. Here's a link:

Lampton v. Diaz

If you're reading this forum, you're probably already on top of this, but it's worth pointing out some implications from this decision that might not be apparent at first reading.

First, this decision appears to close the door on absolute immunity for prosecutors who handle public information requests. If you release a document that is confidential by statute or common law, this decision seems to hold that you are not protected by prosecutorial immunity.

Second, this decision certainly has a chilling effect on administrative complaints based on confidential information obtained during a criminal investigation. Although this decision pertains to the release of confidential tax returns in a judicial complaint, its reasoning could extend to any administrative complaint and to the release of similar categories of confidential information in support of the complaint.

Third, this decision seems to hold that a state law grant of immunity does not foreclose a federal cause of action under Section 1983. As Judge Smith observed:

quote:

---

Indeed, as a complainant to the Commission, Lampton likely enjoys immunity from the state law claims under Mississippi law. As shown above, however, federal law does not provide immunity to complainants before state ethics committees, because it was not part of the immunity at common law recognized in Imbler. In the absence of congressional action, we should not create that immunity merely because it may be desirable for some policy reason.

---

I am interested in your reaction to this decision. Am I reading too much into this opinion?