A federal appeals court ruled that a Missouri judge who had two children locked in courthouse holding cells for refusing to leave with their mother cannot hide behind immunity.
Story Snapshot
- On Tuesday, October 13, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Taney County Judge Eric Eighmy both judicial and qualified immunity.
- After a custody hearing, a juvenile officer patted down two children, took their socks and shoes, and, at Eighmy’s direction, locked them in separate holding cells.
- The children were held because they would not leave with their mother, which the court said “is not a jailable offense.”
- The ruling leaves in place a jury’s award of $5,000 to each child, plus attorney fees.
- The court’s words for the judge: “A reasonable judge should have known better.”
A Judge Who Played Jailer
The case grew out of a custody fight between Bart Rockett and Kami Ballard, divorced parents in Missouri. After a hearing in Taney County, their children, Kadan and Brooklyn Rockett, refused to go home with their mother. According to the court, Eighmy had them follow him to a conference room and then to the juvenile area of the courthouse. There, a juvenile officer patted the children down, had them remove their socks and shoes, and, at the judge’s direction, locked each one in a separate holding cell.
The children sat in the cells for about twenty to forty minutes, the court said. Eighmy then asked them again whether they would leave with their mother, and they agreed. According to the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that backed the family, the judge also warned them they could end up in foster care. This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case, and Eighmy has not been charged with any crime.
Why the Judge Lost His Shield
Judges usually cannot be sued for decisions they make on the bench. That protection is called judicial immunity. In an earlier ruling in 2023, the same appeals court said it does not cover what Eighmy did here. The children were not parties to the case, they never set foot in the courtroom, and judges do not “do double duty as jailers,” the court wrote.
Eighmy then tried a second defense, qualified immunity. That rule protects government officials from lawsuits unless they break a right that was already clearly settled. The three-judge panel said no again. Locking up the children was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, which guards Americans against being held by the government without good cause. There was no warrant, no crime, and no emergency. “A custody plan is no substitute for a warrant,” the court wrote, adding that “rough justice does not trump the Constitution.”
A Jury Already Spoke
The father sued on his children’s behalf, and a jury sided with the family. It awarded each child $5,000 on the Fourth Amendment claim. The trial judge refused to cut the verdict and added $326,637.22 in attorney fees. With immunity denied, that award stands.
The court was blunt about how plain the law was. “No case allows a judge to detain children in a holding cell when they refuse to leave with a parent,” it wrote.
Why This Case Matters for Parents and Families
Family courts hold great power over parents and children every day. This ruling is a reminder that a judge answers to the Constitution like everyone else. A robe does not turn a man into a jail guard with free rein over children who disagree with a custody plan.
The Institute for Justice has argued that immunity rules should not shield officials who overstep. In this case, the court ruled that a judge who locks up children for saying no to a parent went far past his job, and that he should have known it.
