Cite as: 520 U. S. 681 (1997)
Breyer, J., concurring in judgment
munity for legislators avoids danger they will "be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial"). Indeed, cases that provide public officials, not with immunity, but with special protective procedures such as interlocutory appeals, rest entirely upon a "time and energy distraction" rationale. See Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U. S. 299, 306, 308 (1996) ("[G]overnment official['s] right . . . to avoid standing trial [and] to avoid the burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery" are sufficient to support an immediate appeal from "denial of a claim of qualified immunity" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 526 (1985) ("[E]ntitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation . . . is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial" (citing Harlow, supra, at 818)).
It is not surprising that the Court's immunity-related case law should rely on both distraction and distortion, for the ultimate rationale underlying those cases embodies both concerns. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 554 (1967) (absolute judicial immunity is needed because of "burden" of litigation, which leads to "intimidation"); Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 349 (1872) (without absolute immunity a judge's "office [would] be degraded and his usefulness destroyed," and he would be forced to shoulder "burden" of keeping full records for use in defending against suits). The cases ultimately turn on an assessment of the threat that a civil damages lawsuit poses to a public official's ability to perform his job properly. And, whether they provide an absolute immunity, a qualified immunity, or merely a special procedure, they ultimately balance consequent potential public harm against private need. Distraction and distortion are equally important ingredients of that potential public harm. Indeed, a lawsuit that significantly distracts an official from his public duties can distort the content of a public decision just as can a threat of potential future liability. If the latter concern can justify an "absolute" immunity in the case of a Pres-
721
Page: Index Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007