Dennis v. Sparks is an excellent case regarding this subject.
Judges cannot be sued for acts related to judicial functions associated with a courtroom, no matter how corrupt. On the other hand, they can be sued in their individual capacities for administrative decisions not specifically linked to a court case. Sexual harassment of court personnel is one obvious example.
But this is so egregious they might allow it.
It's not going to happen. The liability of various government agencies will depend on whether any of their employees knew or should have know what was going on.
There's a lot more precedent than that for judicial immunity when they act within their jurisdiction, but there are chinks in the armor. Big cases like this are ones that change precedent. Personally, I'm against being able to sue judges in normal circumstances because it would ruin the judiciary with meaningless suits whenever someone doesn't like a judgment. If a judge is wrong, misinformed, or just plain inept, it shouldn't be cause for a suit.
But here, with convictions and manifest harm done due to illegal acts in the performance of their jobs, immunity should not survive. Actually, that should probably be the bar -- upon conviction for an illegal act, or upon ruling by the judicial ethics board that serious ethical rules were broken. One should be able to sue if such unethical or illegal acts could reasonably be said to have influenced the a judge's decisions.