Prosecutor immunity
Echols v. Tom Hansel
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Andre Echols asks the Supreme Court to reconsider or narrow a rule that protects prosecutors from money-damages lawsuits under federal civil-rights law for bringing and presenting prosecutions, and to decide whether that protection covers a Chicago city lawyer in a civil vehicle-impoundment case.
- Who it affects
- Echols received no Supreme Court review, and the Court did not resolve whether the city lawyer is protected from damages claims.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Echols alleges the lawyer pursued the case despite false testimony and an unlawful impoundment.
Echols alleges that a Chicago city lawyer pursued a civil vehicle-impoundment case despite false testimony and an unlawful impoundment.
The case centers on Imbler v. Pachtman, a precedent that protects prosecutors from damages claims for acts in starting and presenting prosecutions.
Question presented
1. Whether this Court should reconsider and overrule, or substantially limit, Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409 (1976), which holds that prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts taken in initiating and presenting prosecutions, even when a plaintiff alleges malicious prosecution, knowing use or solicitation of false testimony, lack of probable cause, or bad faith. 2. Whether absolute prosecutorial immunity under § 1983 should extend to a municipal attorney prosecuting a civil vehicle-impoundment enforcement proceeding where the plaintiff alleges that the attorney pursued the proceeding despite false testimony and an unlawful impoundment.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: status
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
New document added
Case data updated: documents, description, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What rule did Echols ask the Court to reconsider?
- He asked the Court to reconsider or narrow Imbler v. Pachtman, which protects prosecutors from damages lawsuits over acts in starting and presenting prosecutions.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.