.svg) | |
| Long title | To amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes. |
|---|---|
| Announced in | the117th United States Congress |
| Number of co-sponsors | 39 |
| Legislative history | |
| |
TheEnding Qualified Immunity Act is a proposed United StatesAct of Congress introduced in 2020 byJustin Amash (L-Michigan) andAyanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) to endqualified immunity in the United States.[1][2][3] Qualified immunity shields police officers and other government officials from being held personally liable for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity (even if those actions violate thecivil rights of those affected) unless their actions violate "clearly established" federal law, aprecedent requiring both that those actions violate written law and that there be a judicial precedent establishing that such actions are unlawful.[4][5][6]
The bill was re-introduced in the 117th Congress by Rep. Pressley in the House of Representatives[7][8] and by Sen.Edward Markey in the Senate.[7][9]
The bill was introduced to theHouse of Representatives on June 2, 2020. In introducing the act, Amash explained:
This week, I am introducing the Ending Qualified Immunity Act to eliminatequalified immunity and restore Americans' ability to obtain relief when police officers violate their constitutionally secured rights. The brutal killing ofGeorge Floyd by Minneapolis police is merely the latest in a long line of incidents of egregious police misconduct. This pattern continues because police are legally, politically, and culturally insulated from consequences for violating the rights of the people whom they have sworn to serve. That must change so that these incidents of brutality stop happening.[2]
As of August 22, 2020[update], the Ending Qualified Immunity Act had 66 cosponsors, of whomRepresentative McClintock is the only Republican.[10] The bill's sponsorship by members of theLibertarian,Republican, andDemocratic parties makes it a tripartisan bill.[11]
Qualified immunity is alegal doctrine inUnited States federal law which shieldsgovernment officials from being held personally liable for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violate "clearly established" federal law—even if the victim's civil rights were violated.[12] TheU.S. Supreme Court introduced the qualified immunity doctrine in 1967, originally with the rationale of protecting law enforcement officials from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability in cases where they acted in good faith in unclear legal situations.[13][14] Starting around 2005, courts increasingly[citation needed] applied the doctrine to cases involving the use ofexcessive ordeadly force by police, leading to widespread criticism that it, in the words of a 2020Reuters report, "has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights".[15]
The increasing frequency of such cases has prompted a growing chorus of criticism from lawyers, legal scholars, civil rights groups, politicians and even judges that qualified immunity, as applied, is unjust. Spanning the political spectrum, this broad coalition says the doctrine has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.
