Judges enjoy absolute immunity, even if their conduct is malicious or dishonest. See Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 13 Wall. 335 (1872), and cases cited therein. The Supreme Court, following centuries of English precedent, held that judges have absolute immunity from suit as a result of their judicial acts, no matter how malicious, reasoning that judicial independence must be preserved at all costs:
For it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Liability to answer to every one who might feel himself aggrieved by the action of the judge, would be inconsistent with the possession of this freedom, and would destroy that independence without which no judiciary can be either respectable or useful.
Id. at 347.
Arbitral Immunity Is Also Absolute
Arbitrators have immunity from suit for the same reasons that judges do. As the Second Circuit noted in Austern v. Chicago Board Options Exchange, 898 F.2d 882 (2d Cir. 1990),
[b]ased primarily on the “functional comparability” of the arbitrator’s role in a contractually agreed upon arbitration proceeding to that of his judicial counterpart, the Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue have uniformly immunized arbitrators from civil liability for all acts performed in their arbitral capacity.
Id. at 886 (citing cases from the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.)
The court noted that arbitrators must be able to exercise independent judgment, free from the threat of lawsuits, undue influence, and reprisals by dissatisfied parties. In addition, individuals “cannot be expected to volunteer to arbitrate disputes if they can be caught up in the struggle between the litigants and saddled with the burdens of defending a lawsuit.” Id.(citation omitted).
Read original article

