Shielded Behind the Law
Qualified immunity stands as a particularly contentious barrier to accountability and civil liberties.
Qualified immunity ostensibly serves to protect government officials from litigation over discretionary actions taken in the course of their duties, unless they violate "clearly established" rights. The "clearly established" standard for qualified immunity was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald1. In this landmark decision, the Court articulated that government officials are protected from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
This doctrine aims to balance the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly with the need to shield them from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.
However, the application of this doctrine has evolved into a mechanism that, in many cases, shields egregious misconduct from legal scrutiny, undermining the foundational principle of accountability in public service.
Priscilla Villarreal, known as "La Gordiloca", is a citizen journalist in Texas. She was arrested under a rarely invoked state law after she published information about the suicide of a border patrol agent, which she obtained by asking a source within the Laredo Police Department.
The law prohibits individuals from "soliciting or receiving nonpublic information from a public servant with the intent to obtain a benefit." Despite the charges against her being dropped, Villarreal filed a Section 19832 claim against the Laredo Police Department for violating her First and Fourth Amendment rights. However, the lawsuit was dismissed based on qualified immunity.
The case was taken to the Fifth Circuit, which, in a rare move, initially ruled against qualified immunity, suggesting the law violated the First Amendment. Nevertheless, upon an en banc review (where the case was reconsidered by the entire bench of the Fifth Circuit judges), the decision was overturned by a vote of 9-7, and the officers and prosecutors were entitled to qualified immunity since the law's violation of the First Amendment was not deemed obvious.
This case underscores the protective veil qualified immunity offers to police officers and public officials, often at the expense of individuals' rights and accountability.
Critics argue3 that qualified immunity has strayed far from its original intent, becoming a tool for officials to act with impunity, safe in the knowledge that the doctrine provides a formidable shield against lawsuits.
Qualified immunity favors government defendants and makes it harder for plaintiffs to win—regardless of the merits of their claims.
In all, 59% of qualified immunity appeals were resolved solely in favor of government defendants, while 24% were resolved solely in favor of plaintiffs.
This safety net encourages a culture of indifference to constitutional rights, as the likelihood of facing consequences for violations is significantly diminished. The complexity and inconsistency in applying the "clearly established" standard further exacerbate this issue, creating a legal environment where the protection of civil liberties is rendered conditional and uncertain.
The implications of qualified immunity extend beyond the individual cases of injustice it may perpetuate. They strike at the heart of the relationship between the government and the governed, eroding trust and confidence in public institutions.
When government officials operate under a presumption of immunity, it sends a chilling message to citizens: That the avenues for redress and accountability enshrined in the Constitution may be obstructed by judicial fiat.
The necessity for reform, therefore, is not merely a matter of legal refinement but a pressing demand for the restoration of fundamental principles. If government officials are indeed acting with impunity under the aegis of qualified immunity, then this practice is fundamentally at odds with the people's ability to seek redress for grievances under the Constitution.
Such a situation calls for a reevaluation of qualified immunity, with an eye towards ensuring that it no longer serves as a barrier to justice but as a balanced measure that genuinely protects the public interest without sacrificing accountability.