Access to Justice

CAC Letter Urging the Senate to End Qualified Immunity

The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution against the backdrop of police and mob violence directed against African Americans. The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment detailed the need for universal guarantees of liberty and equality, and they laid out, often in gruesome detail, a campaign of unending violence against African Americans perpetrated by police and white mobs. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to put an end to such police violence and killings. The Amendment’s authors recognized that African Americans could not take their place as equal citizens in our nation if the states and their officers were free to brutalize them. The Reconstruction-era Congress wrote 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of liberty and equality by holding police and other state actors accountable for violating the constitutional rights of the public they swear to protect. The text of Section 1983 is as clear as can be: it makes officials acting under color of state law categorically liable for constitutional violations and provides no immunities from suit. Rather than heeding this text, the Supreme Court has interpreted Section 1983 to give officers sweeping immunity from suit, even when they engage in brutal conduct, disproportionately harming the marginalized communities the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect.

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court created from whole cloth the legal doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from civil liability when they violate people’s constitutional rights in all but the rarest cases, creating a sweeping defense that does not exist in the text of our laws. Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, as it currently exists, government officials cannot be held personally liable unless they have violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. In practice, it has become very difficult to meet this standard, because plaintiffs are often required to identify prior case law involving nearly identical fact patterns. Even in cases in which the defendant’s actions were obviously wrong, the plaintiff is often denied relief and the government official escapes accountability.

The judge-made qualified immunity doctrine leaves a gaping hole in federal civil rights laws, frustrating congressional intent to hold government actors accountable for unconstitutional acts. As a result, instead of a system of remedies for misconduct, we have a system that breeds impunity. We cannot hope to rein in abuses of power if courts give the police and other state actors a free pass when they violate an individual’s rights.

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
November 10, 2021

With qualified immunity, courts fail to protect against police brutality

In yet another recent decision, the Supreme Court has continued to make it hard to...
By: Tekla Taylor
Access to Justice
November 10, 2021

RELEASE: The Ability to Hold Officials Accountable for Depriving People of their Constitutional Rights Has Been Gutted by the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON – Today, Constitutional Accountability Center is releasing new scholarship by CAC Civil Rights Director...
By: David H. Gans, Elizabeth B. Wydra
Access to Justice
November 10, 2021

ISSUE BRIEF: Repairing Our System of Constitutional Accountability: Reflections on the 150th Anniversary of Section 1983

Enacted in 1871 against the backdrop of horrific state and Ku Klux Klan violence aimed...
By: David H. Gans
Access to Justice
November 8, 2021

RELEASE: State Secrets Privilege Not Grounded in Constitution

WASHINGTON – Following today’s oral argument in FBI v. Fazaga, where the Supreme Court considered...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Reed v. Goertz

In Reed v. Goertz, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider when the statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim challenging the adequacy of state procedures for seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga

In FBI v. Fazaga, the Supreme Court is considering whether allegations of unlawful government surveillance may be adjudicated using procedures in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act instead of being dismissed as a result of the...