By Victor Li
October 16, 2026

Citing the strict legal protections of prosecutorial immunity, a federal judge in New Mexico has dismissed the vast majority of actor Alec Baldwin’s civil lawsuit against the prosecutors who previously sought to convict him in connection with the fatal 2021 shooting on the movie set of Rust.

U.S. District Judge Kea Riggs of the District of New Mexico issued a ruling holding that former New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies and special prosecutor Andrea Reeb were legally entitled to absolute immunity regarding most of the specific claims filed against them by the actor. Riggs’ decision follows closely on the heels of a separate ruling issued weeks earlier, in which the federal judge similarly dismissed claims brought against special prosecutor Kari Morrissey, relying on the same foundational legal doctrines protecting prosecutors from civil liability for actions taken in the course of their official duties.

While navigating the complex web of immunity doctrines, Judge Riggs expressed explicit concern over the underlying conduct alleged by the plaintiff. In her written opinion, the judge noted that even though the court remains troubled by the allegations of professional and procedural misconduct leveled against defendants Carmack-Altwies and Reeb, the law necessitates a recognition that as state prosecutors, they are entitled to invoke the robust shield of absolute prosecutorial immunity for core prosecutorial functions.

The civil litigation stems from a tragic incident that unfolded in October 2021 on the set of the Western film Rust, which was filming at the Bonanza Creek Ranch outside of Santa Fe, New Mexico. During a rehearsal on the set, a prop pistol held by Baldwin discharged, resulting in the tragic death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza. The incident triggered massive industry-wide safety investigations, intense media scrutiny, and a protracted legal battle over criminal culpability in the handling of firearms on commercial film sets.

Following extensive investigations by local law enforcement and state authorities, Baldwin was formally charged with involuntary manslaughter in 2023. However, the high-profile criminal case came to an abrupt halt in July 2024 when the presiding trial judge threw out the indictment. That dismissal was granted after the defense successfully demonstrated that the prosecution had engaged in severe and prejudicial discovery violations, withholding crucial evidence from the defense team.

Capitalizing on the collapse of the criminal case, Baldwin’s legal team filed a sweeping civil lawsuit in early 2025. The complaint targeted the prosecution team directly, asserting claims of malicious prosecution, defamation, and severe civil rights violations stemming from the handling of the criminal indictment and subsequent public statements.

Despite the sweeping nature of the immunity shield, Judge Riggs’ recent ruling did not entirely close the door on all aspects of Baldwin’s lawsuit. The federal judge carved out specific exceptions where absolute immunity did not apply, allowing certain allegations to move forward toward potential further litigation.

Specifically, Judge Riggs ruled that Carmack-Altwies could not claim absolute immunity regarding allegations tied to her purported role in the physical investigation and the subsequent destruction of the firearm involved in the shooting. The judge reasoned that such investigative acts and evidence handling fell outside the core judicial phase of the prosecution and were therefore too far removed from the judicial process to warrant absolute immunity. Furthermore, claims concerning Carmack-Altwies’ alleged public media statements and her direct involvement in the preliminary law enforcement investigation will also be allowed to proceed, largely because the former district attorney had not formally sought their dismissal under those specific legal theories.

In evaluating the conduct of special prosecutor Andrea Reeb, Judge Riggs addressed constitutional questions regarding the separation of powers. The judge found that Reeb had indeed violated separation of powers principles by simultaneously serving as a sitting state legislator while acting as a special prosecutor on the high-profile case. Nevertheless, Riggs concluded that this constitutional dual-role violation did not completely strip Reeb of her underlying legal authority to prosecute the case. At the same time, the federal judge declined to dismiss a handful of what she described as vague and undated allegations directed against Reeb, determining that it was premature at this procedural stage to definitively decide whether immunity applied to those specific, less-defined claims.

Legal representatives for the prosecution team expressed satisfaction with the court’s overarching decision to dismantle the core of the lawsuit. Luis Robles, the attorney representing the prosecutors, stated in a formal comment that his clients were relieved and heartened by the federal judge’s ruling, which validated the protective boundaries surrounding prosecutorial discretion under the law.

Meanwhile, representatives and legal counsel for Alec Baldwin did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the federal court’s decision to trim down the lawsuit. The ongoing civil proceedings represent just one chapter in the enduring legal fallout from the Rust tragedy, as civil and negligence claims continue to navigate the court system alongside the remnants of the actor’s legal challenges against state officials.