Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that often prevents lawsuits against government officials unless a prior court decision has “clearly established” that their specific actions violate the Constitution. This can leave many individuals without means for redress, which raises serious concerns about constitutional rights.
It’s important to clarify: the Constitution is meant to safeguard individual rights, not to give a free pass to officials who infringe those rights.
There’s a troubling reality today. Reports of law enforcement abuses are becoming increasingly common. For example, take the Crossfire Hurricane incident, where officials utilized questionable documents from political sources to obtain surveillance warrants during and after the 2016 election.
Then there’s Arctic Frost, a misguided operation that targeted numerous individuals with sweeping requests for private communications in a bid to disrupt President Trump’s 2024 campaign.
These situations raise a critical question: when government authority oversteps constitutional bounds, who is held accountable?
Often, qualified immunity provides no clarity or resolution to this dilemma.
However, the Supreme Court seems to be taking a closer look at this principle, as suggested by its recent handling of three qualified immunity cases.
What’s different this time?
In previous years, courts have quickly dismissed qualified immunity applications, sometimes without much explanation. This time feels different. The three cases are taking longer than usual, with justices seeking clarifications and records from lower courts. The Court has even postponed decisions multiple times.
This doesn’t necessarily mean a change to the doctrine is coming, but it does indicate greater scrutiny.
Case 1: Smith vs. Scott
The petition for Smith vs. Scott was filed nearly a year ago. It originated from a distressing incident where a 65-year-old man, thinking he had an intruder outside, called the police. When officers arrived but couldn’t find anyone, they attempted to cuff him. The situation escalated, ultimately leading to the man’s death from suffocation.
Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit refused to grant qualified immunity to the officers, but they appealed to the Supreme Court. The defendant initially waived their response—common in such cases—but the Court called for action after the incident’s first meeting in May. Since then, the petition has been resubmitted 13 times without resolution.
Case 2: Zorn vs. Linton
In Zorn vs. Linton, protests occurred at the Vermont State Capitol as demonstrators occupied the building. When Shelagh Linton refused to leave, the police used force to remove her, prompting her to sue for the injuries she claimed resulted from unreasonable force.
A district court initially granted qualified immunity to the officers, but the Second Circuit reversed that decision. After a petition was filed with the Supreme Court, the defendant again waived their response, leading the Court to request further information. This case is significant because it raises questions about the obligations of citizens when they violate legal orders and whether officers can claim immunity in such instances.
Case 3: Villarreal v. Alaniz
In Villarreal v. Alaniz, journalist Priscilla Villarreal was arrested under a state law limiting the solicitation of nonpublic information, a move she argues violated her First Amendment rights.
The district court granted qualified immunity, but a panel of the Fifth Circuit denied it. The full Fifth Circuit later relented to qualified immunity. Justice Andrew Oldham questioned whether the reasons justifying immunity—like the need for quick police action amid uncertainty—truly apply when officers have time to prepare for an arrest.
The Supreme Court received the petition last July and has requested further records following multiple meetings.
What the Supreme Court might do next
While it’s hard to predict the judges’ decisions, these cases provide a range of options for the Supreme Court.
The Court could choose to reinforce qualified immunity, particularly in excessive force cases, further protecting officers amid rising litigation.
Alternatively, it might narrow its application, indicating that immunity shouldn’t apply in situations where officials have had ample time to deliberate.
Another possibility is that the Court may clarify what constitutes “clearly established” law, distinguish between situations requiring rapid responses versus those that allow for thoughtful decision-making.
Ultimately, the concept of “exemption from liability for infringement of rights” seems increasingly out of touch. In most professions outside law enforcement, individuals are accountable for their actions. Doctors, engineers, and business leaders cannot hide behind previous case laws; they must adhere to a broad standard of care.
Qualified immunity, on the other hand, reduces constitutional protections to mere formalities. While theoretically it exists, in practice, it’s often ineffective.
This year’s Court session feels distinct, marked by thorough reviews and ongoing inquiries. If the Court chooses to revisit qualified immunity, even partially, the impact could resonate beyond these cases, as federal courts handle many civil rights claims each year. This principle critically shapes whether citizens can assert their constitutional rights.
One thing seems clear: the Supreme Court is deliberating carefully, and if they scrutinize the doctrine, significant changes could be on the horizon.
