By Victor Li

SANTA FE, N.M. — Citing the formidable legal shield of prosecutorial immunity, a federal judge in New Mexico has dismissed the bulk of actor Alec Baldwin’s high-stakes lawsuit against the prosecutors who previously sought to put him on trial for the fatal 2021 shooting on the movie set of Rust.

U.S. District Judge Kea Riggs of the District of New Mexico ruled that state prosecutors Mary Carmack-Altwies and Andrea Reeb were entitled to absolute immunity regarding most of the civil counts brought against them by the actor. Riggs’ decisive ruling arrives just weeks after she similarly dismissed independent claims filed against special prosecutor Kari Morrissey, applying the identical legal doctrine of prosecutorial immunity to protect government lawyers from civil liability tied to their core duties.

The underlying controversy traces back to a tragic day in October 2021 on the remote movie set of the Western film Rust at the Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico. During a rehearsal, a prop gun held by Baldwin discharged, tragically killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza. The incident touched off years of intense criminal investigations, public outcry, and fierce legal battles within both the entertainment industry and the American legal system.

Following years of scrutiny, Baldwin was formally charged with involuntary manslaughter in 2023. However, the high-profile criminal case came to a sudden and dramatic halt in July 2024. State court Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed the involuntary manslaughter case against Baldwin with prejudice, ruling that the prosecution and law enforcement had engaged in “egregious discovery violations” by withholding crucial evidence—specifically, live ammunition rounds brought to the sheriff’s office by a Good Samaritan—from the defense.

Buoyed by the dismissal of his criminal indictment, Baldwin turned the tables in early 2025, launching a civil lawsuit against the legal team that had pursued him. His complaint alleged malicious prosecution, defamation, and severe civil rights violations, arguing that the prosecutors acted in bad faith and abused the power of the state to target him improperly.

Yet, despite the serious nature of the allegations leveled by the actor’s legal team, federal law heavily shields prosecutors when they are performing functions closely tied to the judicial phase of the criminal process. In her written opinion, Judge Riggs acknowledged the gravity of the accusations made by the defense but underscored the strict limits imposed by legal precedent regarding government accountability.

“Even though the court is concerned by the allegations of misconduct by defendants Carmack-Altwies and Reeb, it recognizes that, as prosecutors, they are entitled to invoke the protection of absolute prosecutorial immunity,” Riggs wrote in her decision.

While the core malicious prosecution claims were struck down, Riggs’ ruling did not entirely clear the slate for all defendants. The federal judge determined that Carmack-Altwies was not entitled to absolute immunity concerning allegations tied to her purported role in investigating and destroying the firearm involved in the incident. Riggs reasoned that investigative tasks of that nature fell outside the traditional scope of courtroom advocacy and were “too far removed from the judicial process” to warrant absolute protection. Furthermore, claims concerning Carmack-Altwies’ alleged public media statements and her general involvement in the law enforcement investigation will be permitted to proceed, largely because the prosecutor had not formally sought their dismissal in that motion.

Judge Riggs also addressed separate constitutional concerns surrounding the actions of Andrea Reeb, who served simultaneously as a state legislator and as a special prosecutor on the case. Riggs found that Reeb’s dual roles violated the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. Despite that violation, the judge concluded that Reeb still retained the underlying legal authority to prosecute the case. Additionally, Riggs declined to dismiss a handful of what she characterized as “vague and undated allegations” against Reeb, determining that it was premature at this stage of the litigation to definitively decide whether immunity applied to those specific points.

Legal representatives for the government officials expressed satisfaction with the outcome. Luis Robles, the attorney representing the prosecutors, issued a statement to Courthouse News Service indicating that his clients were deeply “relieved” and “heartened” by the federal court’s decision to dismiss the primary claims.

Meanwhile, representatives and legal counsel for Alec Baldwin did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the federal judge’s ruling. The civil litigation will now move forward on the surviving, narrower claims permitted by the court, even as broader questions regarding accountability and the handling of the original criminal prosecution continue to resonate throughout the legal community.