Missouri Judge Eric Eighmy’s Immunity Defense Fails After He Locked Two Children in Cells

Jimmy ParkerOctober 13, 20263

Children Sent to Cells After Courthouse Dispute

A Missouri custody dispute took an extraordinary turn when Circuit Judge Eric Eighmy ordered two children into juvenile detention after they refused to leave the courthouse with their mother. Kadan and Brooklyn Rockett were not parties to the case and never entered the courtroom. Their parents and attorneys had reached a temporary agreement involving the children staying with their mother, but the siblings wanted to remain with their father to avoid disrupting their growing entertainment careers. The pair had reached the semifinals of America’s Got Talent in 2016 with a magic act and had appeared in Hollywood films. After the hearing, they argued with their mother in the courthouse hallway. According to the lawsuit and later findings, Eighmy removed his robe, intervened, lectured them about the “evils of Hollywood,” and became frustrated when they refused to give in. He personally escorted them to juvenile detention, watched as they removed clothing and belongings, and had them placed in separate cells for roughly an hour. He also threatened foster care and said they might never see their family again. The pressure ended only when the children agreed to leave with their mother.

The Eighth Circuit Says the Judge Went Too Far

On Oct. 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that Eighmy’s conduct violated the children’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. Circuit Judge David Stras wrote that “when Judge Eric Eighmy had courthouse officers lock two children in holding cells because they refused to leave with their mother following a custody hearing, he violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.” Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith and Judge Jonathan A. Kobes joined the opinion. The panel stressed that judges may direct an officer or bailiff to escort someone, but “judges do not do double duty as jailers.” Judicial power can resolve disputes and enforce lawful orders, but it does not create unlimited authority to personally detain people who frustrate a judge.

Immunity Did Not End the Civil Rights Case

The children’s father sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unreasonable seizure and related constitutional violations. Eighmy argued that absolute judicial immunity protected him from personal liability. That shield often protects judges from lawsuits over erroneous or even malicious decisions made in their judicial role. The appeals court rejected Eighmy’s qualified immunity defense and dismissed his renewed judicial immunity argument on procedural grounds. An earlier Eighth Circuit ruling had already rejected the judicial immunity argument as it applied to the detention. Stras noted that the children “were never parties, they never stepped foot in the courtroom, and Judge Eighmy personally locked them up himself.” The panel said it could not find any case extending judicial immunity that far. Stras summarized the constitutional limit plainly: “In short, rough justice does not trump the Constitution.”

Damages and Legal Fees Remain in Place

A jury awarded each child $5,000, for a total of $10,000 in damages. The district court later awarded $326,637.22 in attorney fees and costs. Eighmy challenged both awards, but the appeals court rejected those challenges. The court explained that federal civil rights litigation does not require attorney fees to match the amount of damages awarded. The ruling also emphasized why the personal detention mattered: marching the children to cells, watching them remove their clothing and belongings, and later returning to release them went beyond any reasonable judicial act.