How do you hold the government accountable when the government creates statutes, laws, and doctrines exclusively aimed at avoiding accountability for their own actions?
Qualified immunity has sparked significant public discourse in recent years, particularly in the context of violent and deadly interactions with law enforcement. As the Trump administration ushers in its second ultra-conservative administration, this legal doctrine is poised to remain at the forefront of national conversations.
Qualified immunity determines when government officials, including police officers, can be held accountable for violating constitutional rights. Critics argue that it has shielded public officials from accountability in ways that undermine civil rights protections. While its defenders emphasize its necessity for allowing government officials to perform their duties without fear of constant litigation, the doctrine’s origins and applications showcase the ways this concept has been pulled out of thin air and used to trample on the rights of the people.
What is Qualified Immunity?
Qualified immunity is a legal defense for government officials, shielding them from personal liability when they violate an individual’s constitutional rights while performing their official duties. In the context of actions brought under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code (more on that below), the judicially-created doctrine effectively blocks lawsuits unless the plaintiff can show that the official violated “clearly established” law.
The “clearly established” standard requires a prior court ruling with nearly identical facts, often creating insurmountable hurdles for those seeking and deserving of justice.
The Shady History of Qualified Immunity
Qualified immunity has a controversial origin story that highlights its fundamental flaws. It was not part of the original intent or application of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which Congress passed shortly after the end of the Civil War to combat state-sanctioned violence and ensure protections for civil rights. Nearly 100 years later, in the 1960s, qualified immunity emerged through judicial interpretation rather than further and appropriate legislative action. Its creation coincided with a backlash against the Civil Rights Movement, as courts began prioritizing the protection of public officials over individuals' rights.
It has since evolved into a barrier that was likely never intended by those who authored the original statute. This judicially manufactured doctrine now permits officials to escape liability even in cases of egregious misconduct, provided no court has ruled on an identical fact pattern. This has not only skewed the balance of justice but has also eroded public trust in the legal system and those who are paid to defend it. The history of qualified immunity reveals its dubious foundation and calls into question its continued legitimacy.
Justly Prudent Stands Against Qualified Immunity
At Justly Prudent, we are actively involved in challenging qualified immunity through two pivotal cases currently in litigation in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Both cases encapsulate how this doctrine denies justice to individuals whose civil rights have been violated. We believe these cases have the potential to reshape the national conversation and could even reach the Supreme Court, possibly setting a new precedent.
We invite you to join us in our fight for justice and accountability. Stay informed by signing up for the Justly Prudent newsletter and following our Facebook page, where we share updates on critical legal topics. Together, we can push for meaningful change and ensure that the law serves to protect the rights of the people—not shield misconduct.
If you have had your rights violated by a government official, we’re here to help you get the justice you are owed and deserve under the law.
About the Author
Attorney Jordan D. Howlette is the founder and managing attorney of Justly Prudent. Prior to establishing his practice, Jordan worked as trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he successfully litigated dozens of civil tax cases on behalf of the United States in federal courts around the country, securing millions of dollars in favorable judgments while also advocating for equitable justice. He is intimately familiar with the procedures, strategies, and processes of litigating cases from start to finish in court and with resolving multi-faceted civil disputes involving high-dollar amounts, complex statutory and regulatory provisions, and diverse parties from different jurisdictions.
DISCLAIMER: The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Justly Prudent, JD Howlette Law, or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this article without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.