To put it mildly, widespread skepticism about qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that makes it difficult to sue state and local government officials for rights abuses, has brought together strange alliances over the years and challenged some stereotypes about traditional partisan fault lines . This week, a federal judge proposed one such alliance: If you hate Roe v. WadeSupreme Court precedent lists abortion as a constitutional right, then you should real Contempt of Qualified Immunity.
Stay with me. The connection emerged in an opinion about a police detective who allegedly used a nearly incomprehensible statement from someone in jail and then coached the same person, leading to the death of an innocent man nearly two years ago. The witness singled out her chosen defendant, Desmond Green, from a series of photographs after it became clear she had chosen someone else. As a result, Greene was arrested on murder charges and spent 22 months in the Hinds County Detention Center, where he claimed there were rodents and where his cellmate was stabbed.
He filed suit. Detective Jacqueline Thomas of the Jackson Police Department countered that she is entitled to qualified immunity, which protects state and local government employees from civil lawsuits if they violate the law in a way that has not been “clarified in previous case law.” determined to be unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi disagreed, ruling that the blatant misconduct did violate clear laws. The officer could reasonably assert such a defense, however, and by dragging out appellate proceedings for years, she is likely to prevail in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, opening a window for discussion of the eligibility doctrine. As a general matter, the lawsuit claims this is an “unsound law.” Reeves jumped at the chance.
In 1871, Congress passed Section 1983, which provided victims of civil rights violations with an avenue for federal lawsuits. Qualified immunity did not exist until the Supreme Court legislated its existence as a form of defense in a 1967 case pearson v ray, In it, the judge created a “good faith” exception for lawsuits filed by state and local government employees accused of misconduct. The court subsequently strengthened this defense with the following ruling in 1982: Harlow v. Fitzgeraldwhich sets out a strict and rigorous “clearly established” standard that can lead to a plaintiff’s demise if it cannot find a prior court precedent with nearly identical circumstances.
In other words, qualified immunity arose in the context of the legislative process, not because of it, and the Supreme Court — regardless of intent — watered down a nearly century-old federal statute. In a sense, this puts qualified immunity in the same category as abortion jurisprudence.
“Opponents of qualified immunity advance many of the same arguments as opponents of abortion,” Reeves wrote in his opinion. “In both cases, the primary complaint is that the Supreme Court ignored authoritative texts” to “Balancing implied rights and interests”. Reeves noted that this is especially true in the case of qualified immunity because lawmakers have clearly decided what should happen in that situation. It’s no secret. They put it into law a century and a half ago.
exist Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationoverturning the 2022 decision Roe v. WadeReeves wrote, “The Court has instead held that it is for voters, not judges, to resolve reliance-interest issues.” This is not a controversial premise, even if one supports abortion. The idea that it is inappropriate for judges to “legislate from the bench” rather than for legislators to legislate in Congress has long been a hallmark criticism. That’s fair. And it should not be applied selectively.
The Supreme Court, for its part, has seemed reluctant to address qualified immunity as a doctrinal matter. Even though they have overturned some ridiculous rulings in recent years—like in 2020, they reject 5th Circuit’s decision to grant qualified immunity to correctional officers Imprisoned a mentally ill patient In cells filled with feces and sewage, the judges allegedly opposed a broad reconsideration of the doctrine. Perhaps they prefer to let Congress do its job. The problem, of course, is that Congress did do its job, and then the Supreme Court decided it knew better.
But there’s something else about qualified immunity that makes the doctrine even more relevant in the conversation about the people being blamed for such problems. As Reeves puts it, voters, not judges, should “address the issue of trust,” which is especially important when considering the central question here: Should alleged victims of government abuse of power be granted the privilege of a jury trial? Just because a victim overcomes qualified immunity doesn’t mean they win their case; it means they can present their case in front of a jury. If they fail on qualified immunity grounds (a decision made by judges rather than voters), they lose the chance to get ahead of their peers, closing the courthouse doors before any trial can begin.
Reeves’ recent ruling is not the first time qualified immunity has been granted. In 2020, he lamented that the current situation was “extraordinary and unsustainable.” Then, in the same decision, he reluctantly provided protection to a police officer who allegedly caused $4,000 in vehicle damage to a man during an extensive drug search that found no contraband. Because there is almost no precedent for similar situations. “This court must apply the law as set forth by the Supreme Court,” Reeves wrote. “Under this law, an officer who turned a brief traffic stop into a nearly two-hour, life-changing ordeal is entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, the officer’s motion seeking the same immunity was granted.”
