◆ SpookStack

The doctrine of immunity for those performing federal functions is for the protection of the public interest in the fearless, vigorous and effective administration of policies of Government. Scheuer Vs Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 241-242 (1974). ‘Throughout the development of the immunity doctrine, one policy consideration has pervaded the analysis: “the public interest requires decisions and action to enforce laws for the protection of the public." Id. at 241. The immunity doctrine thus protects federal officials not only from unjustified liability, but alr Somer unnecessary trials which would hamper them in the performance of their duties and thus injure the public. See Butz v. Economou, supra, at 2906; Barr V- Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, at. 571 (1959); Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 562 (1978); Maiorana v. MacDonald, supra. The Supreme Court has conse- Guently insisted upon "firm application" of the Federal Rules of | Civil Procedure to avoid unnecessary trials. Butz v. Economou, supra, at 2911. Ignoring this directive, the panel decision here subjects the ceaeaians defendants to another prolonged and: unnecessary trial upon “the issue of their dnghirhanat liability. The decision will have a chilling effect upon law enforcement. As Judge Swygert's opinion time and again emphasizes, the federal defendants were acting to supply information to =e State! Ss 4 Attorney® s office pursuant to the directives and mandates of their superiors (see, e-g., Slip Op. 12). Because the majority concludes that federal appellees have not shown that they "should not have known" either that appellants’ “rights existed or that their alleged conduct violated