Opinion ID: 3023401
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The presence of institutional safeguards

Text: against improper conduct Courts have taken a variety of procedural safeguards as particularly relevant to the judicial status inquiry. The greater the prevalence of such features, the more the activity looks judicial.3 See, e.g., Butz, 438 U.S. at 513-14; Bettencourt, 904 F.2d at 783-84; Jodeco v. Hamm, 674 F. Supp. 488, 497-98 3 Of course, institutional safeguards typically attend legislative acts, too. Legislative actors, like judicial actors, are entitled to absolute immunity. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951). Most executive officers, by contrast, are entitled to only qualified immunity, under which they can be sued for acts which are clearly illegal – in other words, which a reasonable officer would have known were illegal. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1982). While a municipal zoning board could conceivably encompass all three sorts of functions, in this case it is clear to us that the challenged actions are within the heartland of judicial activity. 11 (D.N.J. 1987). In this case, many such safeguards are present and required by law. The local ordinance provides for notice to the parties and the public, Salem Township Zoning Ordinance, § 1506 A, B; public hearings, id. § 603 B; specific procedures for conducting hearings, id. § 603 C; the right to counsel, id. § 1506 G; the use of subpoenas and oaths, id.; the issuance of written decisions, id. § 1506 K; and the preparation of transcripts, id. § 1506 I.