Ending Qualified Immunity Act

Last updated

Ending Qualified Immunity Act
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleTo amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes.
Announced inthe 117th United States Congress
Number of co-sponsors39
Legislative history

The Ending Qualified Immunity Act is a proposed United States Act of Congress first introduced in 2020 by Justin Amash (L-Michigan) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) to end qualified immunity in the United States. [1] [2] [3] Qualified immunity shields police officers and other government officials from being held personally liable for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity (even if those actions violate the civil rights of those affected) unless their actions violate "clearly established" federal law, a precedent requiring both that those actions violate written law and that there be a judicial precedent establishing that such actions are unlawful. [4] [5] [6]

Contents

The bill was re-introduced in the 117th Congress by Rep. Pressley in the House of Representatives [7] [8] and by Sen. Edward Markey in the Senate. [7] [9]

History

The bill was introduced to the House of Representatives on June 2, 2020. In introducing the act, Amash explained:

This week, I am introducing the Ending Qualified Immunity Act to eliminate qualified immunity and restore Americans' ability to obtain relief when police officers violate their constitutionally secured rights. The brutal killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police is merely the latest in a long line of incidents of egregious police misconduct. This pattern continues because police are legally, politically, and culturally insulated from consequences for violating the rights of the people whom they have sworn to serve. That must change so that these incidents of brutality stop happening. [2]

As of August 22,2020, the Ending Qualified Immunity Act had 66 cosponsors, of whom Representative McClintock is the only Republican. [10] The bill's sponsorship by members of the Libertarian, Republican, and Democratic parties makes it a tripartisan bill. [11]

Background

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law which shields government officials from being held personally liable for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violate "clearly established" federal law—even if the victim's civil rights were violated. [12] The U.S. Supreme Court first introduced the qualified immunity doctrine in 1967, originally with the rationale of protecting law enforcement officials from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability in cases where they acted in good faith in unclear legal situations. [13] [14] Starting around 2005, courts increasingly[ citation needed ] applied the doctrine to cases involving the use of excessive or deadly force by police, leading to widespread criticism that it, in the words of a 2020 Reuters report, "has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights". [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tom McClintock</span> U.S. Representative from California

Thomas Miller McClintock II is an American politician serving as the U.S. representative for California's 4th congressional district since 2009. His district stretches from the Sacramento suburbs to the outer suburbs of Fresno; it includes Yosemite National Park. A member of the Republican Party, McClintock served as a California state assemblyman from 1982 to 1992 and from 1996 to 2000, when he became a California state senator, a position he held until 2008. He unsuccessfully ran for governor of California in the 2003 recall election and for lieutenant governor of California in the 2006 election.

False arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ku Klux Klan Act</span> Act of the United States Congress

The Enforcement Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, Third Ku Klux Klan Act, Civil Rights Act of 1871, or Force Act of 1871, is an Act of the United States Congress which empowered the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to combat the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other terrorist organizations. The act was passed by the 42nd United States Congress and signed into law by United States President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871. The act was the last of three Enforcement Acts passed by the United States Congress from 1870 to 1871 during the Reconstruction Era to combat attacks upon the suffrage rights of African Americans. The statute has been subject to only minor changes since then, but has been the subject of voluminous interpretation by courts.

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.

Law enforcement in the United States is one of three major components of the criminal justice system of the United States, along with courts and corrections. Although each component operates semi-independently, the three collectively form a chain leading from an investigation of suspected criminal activity to the administration of criminal punishment.

Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case that considered the application of federal civil rights law to constitutional violations by city employees. The case was significant because it held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statutory provision from 1871, could be used to sue state officers who violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights. § 1983 had previously been a relatively obscure and little-used statute, but since Monroe it has become a central part of United States civil rights law. In other words, police and cities can be sued.

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of immunity of cabinet officers from suits from individuals.

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the doctrine of qualified immunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on Internet sites liability

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code enacted as part of the United States Communications Decency Act, that generally provides immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In United States law, absolute immunity is a type of sovereign immunity for government officials that confers complete immunity from criminal prosecution and suits for damages, so long as officials are acting within the scope of their duties. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that government officials deserve some type of immunity from lawsuits for damages, and that the common law recognized this immunity. The Court reasons that this immunity is necessary to protect public officials from excessive interference with their responsibilities and from "potentially disabling threats of liability."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Respect for Marriage Act</span> Proposed legislation in the U.S. to codify the right to same-sex and interracial marriage

The Respect for Marriage Act, abbreviated as RFMA, is a proposed bill in the United States Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and require the U.S. federal government to recognize the validity of same-sex and interracial marriages in the United States. Its first version in 2009 was supported by former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, the original sponsor of DOMA, and former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA in 1996. The administration of President Barack Obama also supported RFMA. Having been introduced in several previous Congresses, another iteration of the proposal was put forth in the 114th Congress in both the House and the Senate in January 2015. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California remarked that this Congress must "ensure that married, same-sex couples are treated equally under federal law".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ayanna Pressley</span> U.S. Representative from Massachusetts

Ayanna Soyini Pressley is an American politician who has served as the U.S. representative for Massachusetts's 7th congressional district since 2019. This district includes the northern three quarters of Boston, most of Cambridge, parts of Milton, as well as all of Chelsea, Everett, Randolph, and Somerville.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Police brutality in the United States</span> Use of excessive force by a police officer

Police brutality is the repression by personnel affiliated with law enforcement when dealing with suspects and civilians. The term is also applied to abuses by "corrections" personnel in municipal, state, and federal prison camps, including military prisons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Justin Amash</span> Former U.S. Representative from Michigan

Justin Amash is an American lawyer and politician who served as the U.S. representative for Michigan's 3rd congressional district from 2011 to 2021. Originally a Republican, Amash joined the Libertarian Party in April 2020, becoming the party's first member of Congress.

The Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act was a bill proposed in the 115th United States Congress that would recognize legalization of cannabis and the U.S. state laws that have legalized it through their legislatures or citizen initiative. It was introduced on June 7, 2018 by Senators Cory Gardner and Elizabeth Warren. A companion bill was introduced the same day in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Earl Blumenauer and David Joyce. The act would amend the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 to exempt from federal enforcement individuals or corporations in states who are in compliance with U.S. state, U.S. territory and the District of Columbia, or tribal law on cannabis, with certain additional provisions such as minimum ages. The banking provisions of the STATES Act have been reintroduced as the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act of 2019 in the 116th U.S. Congress by Ed Perlmutter in the House, and by Jeff Merkley in the Senate. As of September 18, 2019, the House bill had 206 cosponsors, and the Senate bill had 33 cosponsors.

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases. After first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court held that the conduct of the police officers involved in the case did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first introduced the justification for qualified immunity for police officers from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983, by arguing that "[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Floyd Justice in Policing Act</span> Bill in the United States Congress

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 was a policing reform bill drafted by Democrats in the United States Congress. The legislation was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on February 24, 2021. The legislation aims to combat police misconduct, excessive force, and racial bias in policing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">BREATHE Act</span> American bill

The BREATHE Act is a proposal for a federal omnibus bill, presented by the Electoral Justice Project of the Movement for Black Lives. The bill proposes to divest taxpayer dollars from policing and invest in alternate, community-based approaches to public safety.

References

  1. H.R. 7085(116th Cong.)
  2. 1 2 Prignano, Christina (June 4, 2020). "Ayanna Pressley, Justin Amash introduce bill to end prohibition on lawsuits against police officers". Boston Globe. Retrieved June 17, 2020.
  3. Sibilla, Nick (June 3, 2020). "New Bill Would Abolish Qualified Immunity, Make It Easier To Sue Cops Who Violate Civil Rights". Forbes. Retrieved June 4, 2020.
  4. Millhiser, Ian (June 3, 2020). "Why police can violate your constitutional rights and suffer no consequences in court". Vox. Retrieved June 4, 2020.
  5. Morgan, David (June 4, 2020). "U.S. lawmaker prepares bill aiming to end court protection for police". Reuters. Retrieved June 4, 2020.
  6. Alpert, Seth W.; Stoughton, Jeffrey J.; Noble, Geoffrey P. (June 3, 2020). "How to Actually Fix America's Police". The Atlantic. Retrieved June 4, 2020.
  7. 1 2 Binion, Billy (March 1, 2021). "Ayanna Pressley Revives Justin Amash's Bill To End Qualified Immunity". Reason . Retrieved May 25, 2021.
  8. H.R. 1470(117th Cong.)
  9. S. 492(117th Cong.)
  10. Amash, Justin (June 4, 2020). "Cosponsors - H.R.7085 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): To amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes". United States Congress. Retrieved June 26, 2020.
  11. Binion, Billy (June 11, 2020). "With 1 Republican Cosponsor, Rep. Justin Amash Gains Tripartisan Support To End Qualified Immunity". Reason. Reason. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  12. 63C Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees § 314-15.
  13. Schwartz, Joanna C. (2017). "How Qualified Immunity Fails" (PDF). The Yale Law Journal . Yale Law School. Retrieved February 26, 2020.
  14. Chung, Andrew; Hurley, Lawrence; Botts, Jackie; Januta, Andrea; Gomez, Guillermo (May 8, 2020). "For cops who kill, special Supreme Court protection". Reuters. The increasing frequency of such cases has prompted a growing chorus of criticism from lawyers, legal scholars, civil rights groups, politicians and even judges that qualified immunity, as applied, is unjust. Spanning the political spectrum, this broad coalition says the doctrine has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.
  15. Chung, Andrew; Hurley, Lawrence; Botts, Jackie; Januta, Andrea; Gomez, Guillermo (May 30, 2020). "Special Report: For cops who kill, special Supreme Court protection". Reuters. Archived from the original on June 12, 2020. Retrieved June 2, 2020.