Document Type



The article begins with a summary of the historical origins of the judicial and arbitral immunity doctrines. Next, the article discusses the courts' refusal to extend judicial immunity to claims for declaratory, injunctive, or other equitable relief, except perhaps in the case of federal judges. The article then explores the propriety of recognizing a similar limitation in cases construing the arbitral immunity doctrine. The article ultimately concludes that (1) arbitrators should be immune from claims for equitable relief as a matter of policy, and (2) in jurisdictions where that result is currently precluded by existing precedent, a comparable result can be reached by holding that the arbitrator is not a necessary party in litigation challenging the arbitrator's authority or the validity of an arbitration award.