Qualified immunity
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in the United States that protects public officials, including law enforcement officers, from being held personally liable for actions taken in the course of their duties, as long as those actions do not involve the intentional violation of an individual's constitutional rights. Established under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the doctrine is intended to allow officials to perform their responsibilities without fear of constant lawsuits. However, it has been a focal point of debate, especially since the mid-2010s, due to heightened scrutiny of police conduct amid incidents of excessive force and civilian fatalities. Critics from across the political spectrum argue that qualified immunity may shield officials from accountability for misconduct, leading to a lack of justice for victims whose rights have been violated. The legal standards for qualified immunity require courts to determine whether the official acted in "good faith" and if the rights allegedly violated were "clearly established" at the time. The concept has faced ongoing challenges and calls for reform, particularly in light of cases that seem to demonstrate clear violations of rights without recourse for the affected individuals. Overall, while qualified immunity serves to protect public officials, its application raises significant questions about accountability and justice in the context of civil rights.
On this Page
Qualified immunity
Qualified immunity in the United States is the protection afforded to public officials, such as law enforcement officers and state and federal employees, from being held liable for incidents that occur while they are performing their responsibilities. It does not protect public officials if they intentionally violate a person's constitutional rights, or civil rights, however. Qualified immunity gives public officials broad powers so they can perform their duties without worry of being sued. It does not protect public officials from every act that they may commit—knowingly or unknowingly—and requires officials to act in "good faith" and with "due care."
Though it has deep legal roots, qualified immunity in the modern sense was developed beginning in the 1980s. The fairness of the concept has been questioned by critics on both the left and right of the political spectrum. In particular, qualified immunity drew much scrutiny from in the mid-2010s due to high-profile police killings of civilians and increased public debate over potential excessive police force.
Background
Public officials, including police officers, may be exposed to many challenges and potential risks each day when they are on the job. These risks not only include the possibility of losing their own lives and harming the lives of others but also being held legally accountable for their conduct while performing duties. While people can file civil suits against officials for allegedly exercising their power irresponsibly and intentionally violating constitutional rights, qualified immunity protects officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when performing their job responsibilities. This means that an official cannot be sued if they did not knowingly violate "clearly established," or obvious, rights. If qualified immunity did not exist, officials, such as police officers, could be held accountable for unknowingly breaking the rules while on the job. Supporters of the concept suggest that this could lead to officers not properly performing their duties for fear of violating laws and being sued.
The court system in the United States is responsible for determining whether an official knowingly violated an individual's constitutional rights and if those rights were clearly established. The courts determine this by examining the laws in effect at the time of the alleged violation. Qualified immunity does not protect officials from having to pay monetary damages; it determines whether the officials will stand trial and allows for the dismissal of such suits.
Qualified immunity only protects individual officials and does not encompass the government as a whole. It generally protects authority figures who because of their positions may be susceptible to constitutional violations. It commonly protects law enforcement officers, although it also applies to government officials at the local, state, and federal levels; prison guards and officials; school teachers and administrators; and social workers. It does not apply to judges, prosecutors, legislators, and other government officials, who are protected by other immunity doctrines. For example, the president and judges are protected by absolute immunity, which means they cannot be sued for their conduct when performing official duties. A person cannot file a lawsuit against a judge because they did not receive a wanted decision from the judge in a case.
Overview
Qualified immunity is rooted in a statute known as Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. § 1983), which grew out of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. At this time, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was a powerful force in the United States that used violence to prohibit black people from voting and exercising other civil rights. Although constitutional amendments made incidents such as these unlawful, some state government officials allowed the violence to persist. In response, President Ulysses S. Grant declared martial law to deal with the insubordinate state governments and suppress the KKK.
The 1871 act allowed people to sue a public official for denying them their civil rights within certain limits. For example, if a state government official failed to stop an individual from being blocked from voting because of the voter's skin color, the official could be held liable for suppressing constitutional rights. Section 1983 of this act, which underwent several changes by the US Supreme Court throughout the years, focused on existing rights and did not create new ones. The modern understanding of qualified immunity was defined in the Supreme Court case Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982). Subsequent cases through the early twenty-first century strengthened the qualified immunity argument in many instances, including lawsuits alleging police misconduct.
Examples of qualified immunity cases in which violations of rights occurred typically deal with the Fourth Amendment (searches) and Fifth Amendment (self-incrimination). For instance, a police officer who pulls over an individual for "reasonable suspicion" that a criminal activity has occurred, such as speeding, does not violate Fourth Amendment protections and falls under qualified immunity protections. However, if the individual being stopped for a traffic violation could prove that the officer only pulled them over because of the color of their skin, then qualified immunity would not protect the police officer because the officer has violated the individual's constitutional rights.
To determine if a public official will receive qualified immunity, several tests are applied. First, the courts decide if the law that the official allegedly violated is clearly established. Next, the courts apply the reasonable person standard. For example, would a reasonable person know that the law they allegedly broke was clearly a law? Did the person violate the law knowingly and on purpose? These tests allow the courts to decide if an official acted knowingly to violate a clearly established law. If not, then qualified immunity would apply to the official. Many court cases throughout the years have tested the validity of qualified immunity and changed the standards by which to apply the doctrine. Notably, the "clearly established law" test became frequently invoked to dismiss cases of police violence on the grounds that there was no precedent involving identical circumstances.
In the 2010s and into the 2020s, increased attention to police shootings and other violent police incidents sparked much criticism regarding qualified immunity. It remained difficult to fight cases against police officers granted this protection even in cases seemingly involving clear police brutality. While many legal experts agreed that public officials do need certain protections to avoid frivolous lawsuits, critics argued that qualified immunity had been taken too far, pointing to cases in which people have had their rights violated but received no compensation or justice. Both conservative libertarian groups and progressive social justice organizations called for reform of the concept. Nevertheless, in June 2020 the Supreme Court declined to hear several cases seeking to reexamine qualified immunity.
Bibliography
Balko, Radley. "What Is 'Qualified Immunity,' and How Does It Work?" Washington Post, 14 July 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/14/what-is-qualified-immunity-and-how-does-it-work/?utm‗term=.dc47b22f8829. Accessed 15 May 2017.
Baude, William. "Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?" Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound, 2017, chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2070&context=public‗law‗and‗legal‗theory. Accessed 15 May 2017.
Chen, Alan K. "Qualified Immunity Liming Access to Justice and Impeding Development of the Law." Human Rights, vol. 41, no. 1, 2015, www.americanbar.org/publications/human‗rights‗magazine‗home/2015--vol--41-/vol--41--no--1---lurking-in-the-shadows--the-supreme-court-s-qui/qualified-immunity-limiting-access-to-justice-and-impeding-devel.html. Accessed 15 May 2017.
Chung, Andrew, et al. "For Cops Who Kill, Special Supreme Court Protection." Reuters, 8 May 2020, www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-immunity-scotus/. Accessed 8 July 2020.
Kendall, Tyler. "Qualified Immunity Is At the Forefront of the Debate on Policing." CBS News, 7 July 2020, www.cbsnews.com/news/qualified-immunity-policing-debate/. Accessed 8 July 2020.
Mukherji, Aditi. "What Is Qualified Immunity?" FindLaw, 17 Apr. 2013, blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2013/04/what-is-qualified-immunity.html. Accessed 15 May 2017.
"Police Misconduct and Civil Rights." FindLaw, civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/police-misconduct-and-civil-rights.html. Accessed 15 May 2017.
"Qualified Immunity." Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified‗immunity. Accessed 8 July 2020.
Reid, Brad. "A Legal Overview of Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation." Huffington Post, 14 Apr. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-legal-overview-of-section-1983-civil-rights-litigation‗us‗58f0e17ee4b048372700d793. Accessed 15 May 2017.
Schott, Richard G. "Qualified Immunity: How It Protects Law Enforcement Officers." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Sept. 2012, leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/qualified-immunity-how-it-protects-law-enforcement-officers. Accessed 15 May 2017.
Tottenberg, Nina. "Supreme Court Will Not Reexamine Doctrine That Shields Police In Misconduct Suits." NPR, 15 June 2020, www.npr.org/2020/06/15/876853817/supreme-court-will-not-re-examine-doctrine-that-shields-police-in-misconduct-sui. Accessed 8 July 2020.