Justly Prudent mounts second challenge to constitutionality of Qualified Immunity

BALTIMORE, Maryland - Today, civil rights law firm Justly Prudent mounted a significant constitutional challenge against the controversial doctrine of qualified immunity in a pending federal civil rights case in the District of Maryland. The challenge comes as part of the firm's opposition to a motion for summary judgment in Shawntay Gill v. Justin Mallow (Case No. 1:22-cv-02077-SAG), where a Maryland State Police trooper seeks immunity from liability for alleged racially-motivated excessive force.

Drawing on groundbreaking historical research, the opposition brief argues that qualified immunity has no legitimate basis in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act) and directly contradicts Congressional intent. The firm's constitutional argument highlights recently discovered evidence suggesting that key statutory language expressly displacing immunities was inadvertently omitted from the first official compilation of federal laws in 1874.

"The doctrine of qualified immunity was created by judicial fiat nearly 100 years after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871," said Jordan D. Howlette, Managing Attorney at Justly Prudent, the law firm representing Gill. "Not only does it lack historical foundation, but emerging evidence suggests Congress explicitly intended to prevent exactly this kind of immunity defense in civil rights cases."

The opposition brief details how qualified immunity has evolved from its questionable origins in 1967 into what many legal scholars now describe as an almost impenetrable shield protecting law enforcement officers from accountability, even in cases involving egregious misconduct. The challenge argues that this judge-made doctrine fundamentally undermines the very purpose of the Civil Rights Act—to provide citizens with a remedy against state officials who violate constitutional rights.

"Congress passed the Civil Rights Act specifically to hold state actors accountable for constitutional violations, particularly those motivated by racial animus," Howlette explained. "The Supreme Court's invention of qualified immunity decades later has created exactly the kind of obstacle to justice that Congress sought to eliminate."

The underlying case involves allegations that a Maryland State Police trooper subjected an African American man to excessive force and racial epithets during the execution of a search warrant. The defendant officer has moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity shields him from liability despite the alleged constitutional violations.

Justly Prudent's constitutional challenge to qualified immunity joins a growing chorus of criticism from judges, scholars, and civil rights advocates who argue the doctrine lacks legal foundation and improperly shields officers from accountability. Several Supreme Court Justices have expressed skepticism about the doctrine in recent years, suggesting it may be ripe for reconsideration.