Teacher:In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: judges, the trial management techniques needed to control these lawyers may seem harsh, even abusive. A rigorous standard that restricts sanctions to instances of clearly abusive behavior will reduce the likelihood that councils will sanction appropriate behavior out of inexperience. And quite apart from the problem of inexperience, even judges can act unfairly indeed vindictively towards colleagues. A rigorous standard will reduce, though of course it cannot eliminate, the possibility that judicial discipline will be used to sanction unpopular judges engaged in appropriate behavior. Third, judicial discipline, like civil liability for judicial acts, can chill the proper exercise of judicial discretion. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (<HOLDING>); cf. Williams v. United States, 156 F.3d 86,
Holding statements: (A) holding that imposing civil liability for acts committed to judicial discretion would contribute not to principled and fearless decisionmaking but to intimidation (B) holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts (C) recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction (D) holding that in the context of erisa successor liability is not an independent cause of action but simply a theory for imposing liability based on a predecessors erisa violation (E) holding that the ban on judicial review of actions committed to agency discretion by law is jurisdictional
Student:
holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts