Several commenters point out that while suing the judge is not an option, appealing the judge's ruling remains an option.

So just because a judge completely abdicates their responsibility to use their own judgment, the person now needs to go through a lengthy and expensive appeals process? And even if the judge is sanctioned or removed from the bench, that only prevents future harm; it does not actually make whole the person they have already harmed.

I can tolerate some level of immunity -- maybe even beyond qualified immunity -- to protect judges that make good-faith errors. But when they're engaging in blatant misconduct, it seems like absolute immunity is providing more protection than is necessary or warranted.

Starting a new lawsuit against the judge, potentially with its own appeals, is no less expensive and lengthy of a process than appealing the existing case. Allowing such suits would increase costs to everyone involved, not decrease them.

> And even if the judge is sanctioned or removed from the bench, that only prevents future harm; it does not actually make whole the person they have already harmed.

Yes this is a general problem with misconduct by police, prosecutors, and judges. A lot of times you are fortunate simply to win the case, but usually don't get any compensation for harm caused by the arrest, incarceration before trial, and cost of defense.

I would support dropping immunity and allowing private lawsuits when misconduct is proven through existing processes. But more-so it is very frustrating to me how often the American justice system focuses on punishing the perpetrator while doing little to make the victim whole. The victim should not be required to file a separate private lawsuit to obtain compensation, it should always be part of a criminal prosecution and other disciplinary processes.

If the judge's order was AI slop then presumably it wouldn't withstand an appeal. So one is left wondering why they didn't appeal it in the first place. Why file a whole separate lawsuit? That's going to be even lengthier and more expensive than an appeal.

In fact, a successful appeal might have helped a subsequent lawsuit against the judge since questions like "was AI used?" would have already been litigated. Instead they filed a new lawsuit where those questions won't even be considered until the immunity question is addressed.

It seems like a very strange legal strategy, particularly since from what I can tell the plaintiff is himself an experienced lawyer.