Civil and Human Rights

Justices Reject Qualified Immunity Reform

…In her taser dissent, Sotomayor wrote that the officers elected to use force knowing that it would directly cause the very outcome they claimed to have sought to avoid. “This court’s precedent establishes that ‘the ‘reasonableness’ of a particular seizure depends not only on when it is made, but also on how it is carried out. Using deadly force that does no more than knowingly effectuate the exact danger to be forestalled is clearly unreasonable under this standard.”

In her dissent in the suicide case, she wrote that the jailers were deliberately indifferent to the risks to which they subjected the suicidal inmate.

[Hogan Lovells partner Cate] Stetson has been in the effort to persuade the justices to reform the qualified immunity doctrine for some time. In the petitions just denied, which had been distributed for the justices’ private conferences more than a dozen times, she received support from other legal groups seeking reform of the doctrine, such as the Constitutional Accountability Center, the libertarian Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice….

For more, visit the National Law Journal at https://www.law.com.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 19, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.