A federal judge has dismissed much of Alec Baldwin’s civil rights lawsuit against the prosecutors involved in the criminal case stemming from the 2021 accidental shooting death of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. The ruling turns on a difficult but consequential legal boundary: prosecutors may be accused of serious wrongdoing, yet remain protected from civil damages claims when the challenged actions were part of their work as prosecutors.
Judge Kea Riggs ruled that Kari Morrissey and other prosecutorial defendants were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for conduct undertaken in that official role. The decision does not amount to a finding that every allegation in Baldwin’s complaint was untrue. Instead, it finds that the immunity doctrine blocks many claims seeking to hold prosecutors personally liable in civil court for prosecutorial actions.
“Sometimes, it is better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by an allegedly dishonest prosecutor than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation,” Riggs wrote. “This is one of those times.”
The ruling also leaves a narrower part of the case alive. Claims tied to alleged conduct outside the traditional prosecutorial function—including media statements and the handling of a cache of bullets under a separate case number—survive at this stage. That distinction is the center of the decision, and it means the lawsuit is reduced rather than wholly over.
What Baldwin alleged in the civil case
Baldwin brought the lawsuit last year, arguing that the prosecution against him was improperly pursued following Hutchins’ death. He had been charged with involuntary manslaughter after the 2021 shooting on the Rust set.
His criminal trial ended abruptly in July 2024 when the judge dismissed the involuntary manslaughter charge after learning that Morrissey had withheld evidence from the defense. Baldwin’s civil complaint characterized that episode as part of a wider pattern of alleged misconduct. Among the allegations were claims that prosecutors presented false information to the grand jury, did not disclose two firearms reports, and pursued an unlawful gun enhancement.
Those are allegations made by Baldwin in his lawsuit, not new factual findings made by the federal court. Riggs described the allegations as presenting a “very disturbing picture,” but the legal question before her was not whether every accusation could be proven at trial. The immediate issue was whether the prosecutors could be sued for damages over the acts described in the complaint.
Why prosecutorial immunity matters here
Absolute prosecutorial immunity is a legal protection that generally prevents prosecutors from being personally sued for damages over actions connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. In practical terms, it is meant to protect decisions such as pursuing a charge and presenting a case, even where a defendant later alleges that those choices were wrongful.
The rule can sound counterintuitive in a case involving allegations of misconduct. But the doctrine is intentionally broad. Its purpose, as described in the ruling, is to prevent prosecutors from having to make charging and courtroom decisions under a constant threat of personal civil litigation. Riggs emphasized that the doctrine applies even in hard cases, where the alleged conduct is especially troubling.
That does not mean prosecutors are beyond all forms of scrutiny or that immunity automatically covers every activity performed by someone who holds the title. The protection depends on function: what the official was doing, rather than simply who the official was.
The prosecutor-versus-investigator distinction
When prosecutors act as advocates in a criminal case, they are generally protected by absolute immunity. When they act as investigators, however, they can be exposed to civil claims. This functional divide is why some of Baldwin’s claims were dismissed while others were allowed to proceed.
The state did not seek dismissal of allegations concerning Morrissey’s statements to the media or her agreement to log a cache of bullets under a different case number. Baldwin alleges that the separate logging arrangement effectively concealed the material from the defense. Riggs wrote that claims based on those allegations survive this stage of the litigation.
Survival at this stage is important, but limited. It means those claims have not been eliminated through the immunity motions; it does not decide who is right on the underlying allegations, determine liability, or establish damages. Further litigation may still test the pleadings, evidence, legal theories and defenses.
Who was named, and what remains unresolved
The prosecutorial defendants named in the suit include Morrissey, the special prosecutor who led Baldwin’s criminal trial; Mary Carmack-Altwies, Santa Fe’s elected district attorney; and Andrea Reeb, who had initially been appointed special prosecutor before later withdrawing from the criminal matter.
Baldwin has also sued Santa Fe County and several sheriff’s investigators under New Mexico and federal civil-rights law. Those claims are separate from the prosecutorial-immunity fight. The county has filed motions seeking to dismiss them, but Riggs has not yet ruled on those requests.
That leaves the broader lawsuit in a split posture. Much of the claim against the prosecutors has been dismissed based on immunity. Certain claims involving alleged non-prosecutorial activity remain. And the claims directed at the county and sheriff’s investigators are still awaiting a decision on their own dismissal motions.
A case with a complicated procedural history
The civil action has already moved through more than one court setting. It was initially dismissed last year by a state judge after a lengthy period of inactivity. Baldwin later refiled the case, which was then removed to federal court. The state responded with a series of motions arguing that immunity required dismissal of the claims against the prosecutorial defendants.
The latest order resolves much of that immunity argument, but it does not close the book on all of Baldwin’s civil claims. Baldwin’s legal team had previously maintained that Morrissey would remain a defendant even if the immunity motions succeeded in full. The court’s decision, which preserves claims involving the alleged investigative conduct, means she remains in the case at this point.
What the ruling does—and does not—change
The decision does not reinstate the criminal charge against Baldwin. His involuntary manslaughter trial was dismissed in July 2024 after the evidence-withholding issue came to light. Nor does the civil ruling revisit the merits of that dismissed criminal charge.
It also does not transform the judge’s description of Baldwin’s allegations into a final determination of misconduct. Civil cases progress in stages. A dismissal ruling based on immunity asks whether a legal claim can proceed against particular defendants for particular conduct. It is different from a verdict after a full trial, where evidence is weighed and factual disputes are decided.
For the entertainment industry, the dispute remains a reminder that the legal fallout from a film-set tragedy can continue long after a criminal case ends. The remaining litigation concerns the conduct of public officials during the investigation and prosecution, rather than the creative work of making the film itself. It is a separate track from the production’s legacy, but one that continues to shape public attention around Rust.
It also arrives during a period in which the film world is navigating closely watched legal, labor and production issues; for another current industry development, see this update on a Disney Entertainment Television communications leadership change.
The immediate practical result is straightforward: prosecutors retain immunity from most of Baldwin’s damages claims arising from their prosecutorial work, while the allegations tied to purported investigative activity and public comments can move forward for now. The pending motions involving Santa Fe County and sheriff’s investigators will determine how much of the rest of the civil case remains.
