Qualified Immunity
Qualified immunity is a kind of immunity given to state actors when they act reasonably in their official capacity. It protects government agents from lawsuits alleging that they have violated someone’s rights, such as their civil rights, so long as the government agent acted reasonably, and any alleged right violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. This means that qualified immunity may be granted even if what the actor did was actually illegal, so long as its illegality was not clearly established at the time that they acted. For instance, the Supreme Court in 2009 held that even though a strip search of a 13-year-old at school violated the student’s Fourth Amendment rights, it was not clearly established under the law, and therefore qualified immunity was appropriate.
What does “clearly established” mean? A right is clearly established when, at the time of the alleged violation, any reasonable government official would have known that such an action violated such a right. A government official’s subjective beliefs about whether their actions violated a person’s rights are irrelevant.
Qualified immunity is a defense to a Section 1983 lawsuit in which a person sues a government actor who acted under “color of law” (acting or purporting to act in their official capacity) while violating that person’s civil rights.
Who Can Assert Qualified Immunity?
Qualified immunity only applies to individual government officials, rather than the government itself. The defense of qualified immunity often arises in the case of police officers, but other types of government actors are covered as well, such as executive branch officials.
How Qualified Immunity Has Evolved
In the 1982 case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court found that presidential aides and other government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity. It held that certain government officials performing discretionary functions may be protected by qualified immunity from civil damages if their actions have not violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that a reasonable person would have known.
Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court held that police officers specifically can be protected by qualified immunity. (Anderson v. Creighton, the following year, supported qualified immunity in the context of a warrantless search conducted by an FBI agent.)
In 2001, the Supreme Court established the Saucier test, under which a court must evaluate both whether the facts indicate that a constitutional right was violated and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. The Court also noted the importance of ruling on any qualified immunity issues early in proceedings to avoid the costs of trial, when possible, since immunity means immunity from trial, rather than just immunity from liability.
- 1 Was a constitutional right violated?
- 2 Was the right clearly established at the time of the alleged violation?
A right may be clearly established even if there is no previously decided case with “materially similar” facts, as the Supreme Court noted in the 2002 case of Hope v. Pelzer. Officials can be aware that their actions violate established law even if the specific facts of their situation are novel, so long as they have “fair warning.”
The Court reconsidered the Saucier test in 2009. Among other concerns, it noted that starting with the first prong of the test, whether a constitutional right has been violated, sometimes results in a waste of time and resources because qualified immunity may be found based on the second prong regardless. The Court concluded that judges should be allowed to first address the second prong of the test, whether the right was clearly established at the time, if doing so would be more useful in a particular case.
State-Level Qualified Immunity
Although states cannot alter qualified immunity at the federal level, they are free to make laws regarding qualified immunity in the context of state-level rights. For example, Colorado’s Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act creates a civil cause of action against law enforcement officers who violate state constitutional rights and expressly eliminates qualified immunity as a defense. However, most states continue to allow government officials to assert qualified immunity as a defense in such lawsuits.
Personal Injury Law Center Contents
-
Personal Injury Law Center
- Child Injury Law
- Class Action Lawsuits Based on Injuries
- Defamation Law
- Federal Tort Claims Act — Injury Lawsuits Against the Federal Government
- Insurance Bad Faith Law
- Intentional Torts and Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Legal Malpractice
- Medical Malpractice Law
- Motor Vehicle Accident Law
-
Proving Fault and Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Causation in Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Assumption of Risk in Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Comparative & Contributory Negligence in Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Dram Shop Laws and Liability for Drunk Driving Accidents
- Economic Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Joint and Several Liability in Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Negligence Per Se in Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Non-Economic Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Punitive Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Strict Liability in Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Third-Party Liability in Work Injury Lawsuits
- Impact of Tort Reform on Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Vicarious Liability in Personal Injury Lawsuits
-
Qualified Immunity
- Dram Shop Laws: 50-State Survey
- Comparative & Contributory Negligence Laws: 50-State Survey
- Nursing Home Abuse and Negligence Law
- Premises Liability Law
- Sexual Abuse Law
- What Types of Injuries Can Form the Basis for a Lawsuit?
- Workplace Accident Law
- Wrongful Death Law
- Settlement Negotiations in Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Tips for Working With a Personal Injury Lawyer
- Cost of Hiring a Personal Injury Lawyer
- Personal Injury Law FAQs
- Find a Personal Injury Lawyer
Related Areas
- Car Accidents Legal Center
- Truck Accidents Legal Center
- Medical Malpractice Law
- Birth Injuries Legal Center
- Products Liability Law Center
- Workers’ Compensation Law Center
- Elder Law Center
- Animal and Dog Law Center
- Maritime Law Center
- Aviation Law Center
- Sports Law Center
- Civil Rights and Discrimination Legal Center
- Criminal Law Center
- Insurance Law Center
-
Related Areas