“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americanshappenged ’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Four incarcerated women sued Michigan officials for deliberate failure to treat a painful medical condition.
What happened in this case?
Machelle Pearson and several other women confined in a Michigan prison sought damages from state officials for deliberate failure to treat a painful medical condition. For several years, hundreds of women suffered from an “unbearable” skin ailment in which live mites “burrowed into their skin,” causing painful and itchy red bumps and lesions on their “wrists, armpits, fingers, waists, and genitals.” The women “begged” for medical attention, filing “hundreds” of grievances. Yet for the first two years of the outbreak, the officials “effectively did nothing” to combat it.
The defendant officials sought judgment on the pleadings, claiming qualified immunity from liability. District court judge Stephen Murphy, who was nominated by President George W Bush, denied the motion and the officials appealed to the Sixth Circuit. Trump judges Eric Murphy and Joan Larsen issued a 2-1 decision that reversed the court below and granted qualified immunity, effectively dismissing the case. Judge Helene White, who was also nominated by President Bush, dissented in the March 2026 ruling in Pearson v Michigan Dept of Corrections.
What was the rationale of Trump judges Murphy and Larsen?
In an opinion written by Judge Murphy, the two Trump judges maintained that in order to overcome a claim of qualified immunity by prison officials, the plaintiffs must show that the officials violated a “clearly established’ right, which means that they must “identify a case” with similar enough facts that would have “alerted” the officials that their “specific conduct was unlawful.” In the view of Murphy and Larsen, the women “lack caselaw” that would have so alerted the officials, so qualified immunity should be granted.
Why did Judge White dissent?
Judge White fundamentally disagreed with Murphy and Larsen’s analysis. Initially, she pointed out, the courts have generally held that it is “inappropriate” to decide whether a “clearly established right” is involved at the pleading stage of a case, prior to extensive discovery. In addition, she pointed out, case law establishes that a plaintiff need not identify a “granularly” analogous case where the “very action in question” has been ruled unlawful, so long as the “contours of the right” are clearly established by prior case law. In this case, she went on, “clearly established caselaw gave the officials sufficient notice” of the illegality of their conduct in being deliberately indifferent to the women’s painful medical condition. Qualified immunity should not have been granted, she concluded, and the case should have gone forward.
Why is the decision harmful?
The ruling by Trump judges Murphy and Larsen clearly harmed Machelle Pearson and other women seeking relief from the conduct of Michigan prison officials. The decision also sets a bad precedent for other cases concerning deliberate indifference by prison officials, particularly in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.