SCOTUS OT 2022 - Qualified Immunity Edition

[Knuckle Dragger]

One of the frustrating things about QI is that they come as an interlocutory appeal before the merits are ever addressed. So, when you read that an appeals court has denied qualified immunity for a government actor, that case has already gone on for a few years. The case then goes back to the district court and the process starts all over again to decide if, in fact, there was a violation of someone's rights.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Finally, some attention - from Buzzfeed: A Legal Doctrine That Protects Cops In Court Is Getting Fresh Attention As Videos Surface Showing Police Violence, Courts can grant officers immunity from lawsuits over civil rights violations. Advocates are pushing to get rid of it.

The right to sue law enforcement officers and other government officials dates back to the Civil Rights Act of 1871. There is no federal law or section of the US Constitution that spells out the qualified immunity defense. Instead, the idea that public servants should have some defenses against being sued evolved over time through the courts, and the Supreme Court adopted much of the language that is used now in a series of decisions in the 1980s.

 

[cockpitbob]

Finally, some attention - from Buzzfeed: A Legal Doctrine That Protects Cops In Court Is Getting Fresh Attention As Videos Surface Showing Police Violence, Courts can grant officers immunity from lawsuits over civil rights violations. Advocates are pushing to get rid of it.

The timing of the riots and what's in front of the SCOTUS is fortunate. The fact that some of the Congress weasels are actually talking about legislative fixes is a nice surprise, though I would bet a paycheck anything that comes of it does more harm than good.

I'm not getting my hopes up, but I am allowing a little hope to creep in.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Qualified Immunity 'splained: What is “qualified immunity,” and how does it work?

And in case it's not obvious, Section 1983 passed in 1871 is the same federal law that allows us to sue the Governor, AG, and police chiefs for enforcing unconstitutional laws in Massachusetts.

 

[doxdsgn]

Some are not waiting for SCOTUS -- Bill filed

Should not be limited to only police/LEO, but all government actors.

 

[cockpitbob]

Some are not waiting for SCOTUS -- Bill filed

Should not be limited to only police/LEO, but all government actors.

I just wish it was Republicans looking out for our rights and freedom on this topic.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Anyone else thinking that a knee to the neck and cities on fire just might have a little influence on the SCOTUS and these QI cases?

Some are not waiting for SCOTUS -- Bill filed

Should not be limited to only police/LEO, but all government actors.

Agree 100%. It does. <<== read it. Four pages. The word 'police' is no where to be seen. Ironically, the 1982 case that created QI (Harlow v. Fitzgerald) wasn't a suit against the police, it was against members of the Nixon White House.

I just wish it was Republicans looking out for our rights and freedom on this topic.

Reforming QI has very broad support. At the Court, look for the strongest opposition to QI to come from Thomas and Sotomayor. Recently, two Trump appointees to the 5th Circuit. Ho and Willett, came down on opposite sides. There are Republicans who favor reforming QI. Just not enough or not enough are willing to come out of the closet. We'll have to see if the current 'law-and-order' Republican drumbeat keeps them on the sidelines.

Anyway, orders come out Monday morning......

 

[Uzi2]

"Qualified Immunity"........it has no place in a nation that is supposed to be free.......free from government intrusion into the lives of people, ........free from government over reach in the control of people's activities,.......free from use of excessive force by government enforcement agencies.

When the government agencies set the "qualifications" that ALWAYS favor a monopoly of force in their favor, the whole concept is null and void.

 

[whatluck]

I just wish it was Republicans looking out for our rights and freedom on this topic.

Pffffffffffft. I just spit my coffee all over my expensive keyboard. The repubs are goose-stepping authoritarian tyrants.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

None of the QI petitions were granted and I didn't recognize any of the petitions that were denied (although I'm not that familiur with the names of the QI petitions.) Three more conference days this term. I'd be surprised if they closed the term without resolving these petitions.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

It looks like SCOTUS may have punted on qualified immunity as well. Thomas dissents (alone) here as well in Baxter, where the police set a dog on a guy who had surrendered. I'm still trying to determine if any QI petitions are still alive.

 

[Picton]

It looks like SCOTUS may have punted on qualified immunity as well. Thomas dissents (alone) here as well in Baxter, where the police set a dog on a guy who had surrendered. I'm still trying to determine if any QI petitions are still alive.

My shocked face.

Too bad.

 

[cockpitbob]

But reps for keep us informed!

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

In many ways, this is even more perplexing than the court's refusal to revisit the Second Amendment. These were really good petitions that all had terribly egregious examples of official misconduct. I guess all the relists were so Thomas could right his dissent. I can only think of three reason why the court would punt at this time:

1. They're doubling down on qualified immunity and have no intention of reforming or eliminating the doctrine. That hard to believe given the number of justices that have expressed concerns including Thomas, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. I suspect Gorsuch is no fan, but Alito probably is. I hope this isn't the reason.
2. The court is aware that Congress is poised to consider legislation to address qualified immunity. I think this is lame. Normally, the court does and should let the elected branches of government lead. As they like to say, their role is not to make policy. But that's exactly what they did with qualified immunity. They created the problem, they can and should fix it.
3. The justices can't agree on how to fix it. Thomas, no doubt, would scrap it entirely. He has no respect for stare decisis. Maybe others are in the camp. But overturning precedent is hard for the court and other justice may only want to nueter the doctrine to avoid the kinds of violations we keep seeing.

ETA my rant.

The law is pretty simple and clearly worded:

§1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

[emphasis added] This was passed in 1871 and worked just fine until 1982. There's nothting here about 'good faith' or rights being 'clearly established'.

 

[snd1t]

In many ways, this is even more perplexing than the court's refusal to revisit the Second Amendment. These were really good petitions that all had terribly egregious examples of official misconduct. I guess all the relists were so Thomas could right his dissent. I can only think of three reason why the court would punt at this time:

1. They're doubling down on qualified immunity and have not intention of reforming or eliminating the doctrine. That hard to believe given the number of justices that have expressed concerns including Thomas, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. I suspect Gorsuch is no fan, but Alito probably is. I hope this isn't the reason.
2. The court is aware that Congress is poised to consider legislation to address qualified immunity. I think this is lame. Normally, the court does and should let the elected branches of government lead. As they like to say, their role is not to make policy. But that's exactly what they did with qualified immunity. They created the problem, they can and should fix it.
3. The justices can't agree on how to fix it. Thomas, no doubt, would scrap it entirely. He has no respect for stare decisis. Maybe others are in the camp. But overturning precedent is hard for the court and other justice may only want to nueter the doctrine to avoid the kinds of violations we keep seeing.

ETA my rant.

The law is pretty simple and clearly worded:

[emphasis added] This was passed in 1871 and worked just fine until 1982. There's nothting here about 'good faith' or rights being 'clearly established'.

To be clear its not the role/responsibility/job of the court to "Fix" anything.......that would constitute legislating from the bench as they did earlier this month in declaring that sex meant something other than what the language of the statute explicitly said

The courts constitutional job is to rule for/against an argument presented on whether or not something is constitutional for any of the parties that have standing to bring a case before the court

QI is about as unconstitutional as it gets......Court should simply rule it so and let congress work it out.....not their problem

 

[GM-GUY]

Since it fits here best - I got call from the Benevolent Police Fraternal Benefits Fund and Barbershop Quartet (I didn't pay enough attention to the name). They gave me the schpeel about paying for training and family of fallen officers and whatever else.
Them: "So, if we sent you a donation package, can we count on you?"
Me: "Not until you get rid of Qualified Immunity"
Them: …….Silence for 5 seconds minimum "Excuse Me?"
Me: "Not until you get rid of Qualified Immunity for Police Officers"
Them: …...Well, thank you for your time - have a nice day 'click'.

 

[AHM]

... I can only think of three reason why the court would punt at this time:

1. They're doubling down on qualified immunity and have not intention of reforming or eliminating the doctrine. ...

Maybe the majority feel the absence of QI would turn the legal system
into all-Thunderdome-all-the-time.
If only they internalized the implication that
police won't really be discommoded
if all police are completely unfunded,
then maybe they'll see the error of their ways.
=====

Here's some 11-yo material on eliminating both QI and the Exclusionary Rule,
as UT/K LawProf Blogger Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds wants.

As impermalinked by
Fox News: Eroding the Exclusionary Rule, by Radley Balko.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

To be clear its not the role/responsibility/job of the court to "Fix" anything.......that would constitute legislating from the bench as they did earlier this month in declaring that sex meant something other than what the language of the statute explicitly said

The courts constitutional job is to rule for/against an argument presented on whether or not something is constitutional for any of the parties that have standing to bring a case before the court

QI is about as unconstitutional as it gets......Court should simply rule it so and let congress work it out.....not their problem

The court can and should 'fix' the problems that it creates. QI was their doing, I have no problem with them undoing it.

 

[snd1t]

The court can and should 'fix' the problems that it creates. QI was their doing, I have no problem with them undoing it.

I couldnt agree more.....in cases where the court CREATED a problem they have an obligation to correct it

But they shouldnt be "Interpreting" or "Fixing" things like we saw with Roberts literally redefining what was said/meant in obamacare bill when its written in plain english

 

[Bonesinium]

The law is pretty simple and clearly worded:

That’s because QI was completely made up and intended to protect the state and maintain and increase its power. Because that’s what the state does.

 

[Bonesinium]

QI is about as unconstitutional as it gets......Court should simply rule it so and let congress work it out.....not their problem

It’s directly their problem. They literally created it.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I couldnt agree more.....in cases where the court CREATED a problem they have an obligation to correct it

But they shouldnt be "Interpreting" or "Fixing" things like we saw with Roberts literally redefining what was said/meant in obamacare bill when its written in plain english

And that's all anyone was ever talking out in this thread: the court fixing a problem of it's own creation.

 

[MaverickNH]

This is dumbfounding - likely just a LEO pissing match over jurisdiction https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191697.P.pdf

“In the early morning hours of July 11, 2015, Nathaniel Hicks – then an agent of the United States Secret Service – was parked on the shoulder of Interstate 295 North in Maryland, waiting to lead an oncoming motorcade in his government-assigned vehicle, which had a police antenna, strobing bar, and illuminated emergency lights. At approximately 6:00 a.m., Gerald Ferreyra – an officer with the United States Park Police (“USPP”) – parked his police cruiser behind Hicks’s government vehicle and approached, initiating what would become the first of the two stops of Hicks, this one lasting for between 40 and 60 minutes. As he approached, Ferreyra saw Hicks’s service weapon – a handgun – inside Hicks’s car, and drew his own weapon. Hicks quickly identified himself to Ferreyra as a Secret Service agent and displayed his credentials, including a photograph of himself and a description of his mission. Ferreyra seized Hicks’s service weapon and credentials, and took them back to his police cruiser for verification.“

 

[KBCraig]

This is dumbfounding - likely just a LEO pissing match over jurisdiction https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191697.P.pdf

“In the early morning hours of July 11, 2015, Nathaniel Hicks – then an agent of the United States Secret Service – was parked on the shoulder of Interstate 295 North in Maryland, waiting to lead an oncoming motorcade in his government-assigned vehicle, which had a police antenna, strobing bar, and illuminated emergency lights. At approximately 6:00 a.m., Gerald Ferreyra – an officer with the United States Park Police (“USPP”) – parked his police cruiser behind Hicks’s government vehicle and approached, initiating what would become the first of the two stops of Hicks, this one lasting for between 40 and 60 minutes. As he approached, Ferreyra saw Hicks’s service weapon – a handgun – inside Hicks’s car, and drew his own weapon. Hicks quickly identified himself to Ferreyra as a Secret Service agent and displayed his credentials, including a photograph of himself and a description of his mission. Ferreyra seized Hicks’s service weapon and credentials, and took them back to his police cruiser for verification.“

It's also Maryland. Even though both agencies are federal, they tend to absorb whatever local laws they work under.

 

[AHM]

This is dumbfounding - likely just a LEO pissing match over jurisdiction ...

Puts me in the mind of this vaguely-remembered anecdote:

I once heard a story that a Middlesex deputy pulled someone over​

(for speeding?) on US 3. He either called Billerica PD(?) for backup,​

or they happened across the stop. (I think it was BPD and not MSP).​

​

IIRC, the town cop promptly cut loose the stopped car,​

and ticketed the deputy.​

Not sure what the charges are for "butthurt of a municipal cop".​

​

Whatever the truth or origin of the story,​

I doubt I heard it from BPD and certainly not MSP.​

My acquaintances are too straight-laced​

to air an interservice rivalry, no matter the LOLs.​

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Ok, here is what will happen in QI goes away:

- Insurance companies will start to offer LEO malpractice, similar to that offered MDs and RNs
- Police unions will demand, and get, salary adjustments sufficient to pay the premium on said policies
- Police officers will remain under no personal financial risk if they screw up

 

[robjax]

anyone here old enough to remember the Metropolitan Police? They were the worst.

Used to have Metropolitan Police and Registry Police which all got absorbed under the state I believe....

 

[milktree]

Ok, here is what will happen in QI goes away:

- Insurance companies will start to offer LEO malpractice, similar to that offered MDs and RNs
- Police unions will demand, and get, salary adjustments sufficient to pay the premium on said policies
- Police officers will remain under no personal financial risk if they screw up

... at first. And then the rates will go through the roof and the towns will have to explain why they have to pay $10M/year on malpractice insurance for the cops and why they can't fund the schools or fix the sidewalks and why the taxes keep going up and there will be pushback.

Currently none of those costs exist because you simply can't sue the cops.

 

[SFC13557]

anyone here old enough to remember the Metropolitan Police? They were the worst.

Used to have Metropolitan Police and Registry Police which all got absorbed under the state I believe....

I do, some of the Met Cops got absorbed into MSP and Staties weren't happy. Registry cops were totally disbanded. Both forces were total hackorama's for connected Dems.
O ne of the white morons at the Maynard Black Lies Matter protest had a sign protesting QI. I doubt he even knows what it means.

 

[Matt_SERE]

anyone here old enough to remember the Metropolitan Police? They were the worst.

Used to have Metropolitan Police and Registry Police which all got absorbed under the state I believe....

I do, some of the Met Cops got absorbed into MSP and Staties weren't happy. Registry cops were totally disbanded. Both forces were total hackorama's for connected Dems.
O ne of the white morons at the Maynard Black Lies Matter protest had a sign protesting QI. I doubt he even knows what it means.

Don't forget the MA Capitol Police. All three went bye bye at the same time.