The Supreme Court Won’t Save Us from Qualified Immunity
Mar 10, 2021 18:24:33 GMT -5
Post by avordvet on Mar 10, 2021 18:24:33 GMT -5
The Supreme Court Won’t Save Us from Qualified Immunity
By Jay Schweikert, March 3, 2021 4:58PM
Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine invented by the Supreme Court that shields public officials from liability, even when they violate people's constitutional rights, unless a court determines those rights were "clearly established." Yesterday, USA Today ran an op-ed by Anya Bidwell and Patrick Jaicomo, two attorneys with the Institute for Justice, arguing that the "Supreme Court is rethinking qualified immunity." They base this conclusion on the outcomes in three recent Supreme Court cases -- Taylor v. Riojas, McCoy v. Alamu, and Tanzin v. Tanvir -- gleaning from them that "the Supreme Court is stepping up to deliver by reintroducing some common sense to the law."
I know and admire Anya and Patrick, and I have great respect for their work challenging qualified immunity, and their advocacy for liberty generally. But their op-ed is profoundly mistaken in its suggestion that the Court is preparing to reconsider qualified immunity. The orders in Taylor and McCoy vacated especially egregious grants of immunity, which does suggest the Justices want to curb the worst excesses of the doctrine. But they also suggest the Supreme Court is not going to take up the larger question of whether qualified immunity itself should be reconsidered. And to suggest otherwise is not just wrong, but counter-productive -- raising the false hope that the Court may rescue us from qualified immunity risks distracting Congress from the urgent goal of eliminating the doctrine through legislation.
To fully grasp why the Supreme Court is almost certainly not preparing to reconsider qualified immunity, a bit of background is necessary.
www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-wont-save-us-qualified-immunity
By Jay Schweikert, March 3, 2021 4:58PM
Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine invented by the Supreme Court that shields public officials from liability, even when they violate people's constitutional rights, unless a court determines those rights were "clearly established." Yesterday, USA Today ran an op-ed by Anya Bidwell and Patrick Jaicomo, two attorneys with the Institute for Justice, arguing that the "Supreme Court is rethinking qualified immunity." They base this conclusion on the outcomes in three recent Supreme Court cases -- Taylor v. Riojas, McCoy v. Alamu, and Tanzin v. Tanvir -- gleaning from them that "the Supreme Court is stepping up to deliver by reintroducing some common sense to the law."
I know and admire Anya and Patrick, and I have great respect for their work challenging qualified immunity, and their advocacy for liberty generally. But their op-ed is profoundly mistaken in its suggestion that the Court is preparing to reconsider qualified immunity. The orders in Taylor and McCoy vacated especially egregious grants of immunity, which does suggest the Justices want to curb the worst excesses of the doctrine. But they also suggest the Supreme Court is not going to take up the larger question of whether qualified immunity itself should be reconsidered. And to suggest otherwise is not just wrong, but counter-productive -- raising the false hope that the Court may rescue us from qualified immunity risks distracting Congress from the urgent goal of eliminating the doctrine through legislation.
To fully grasp why the Supreme Court is almost certainly not preparing to reconsider qualified immunity, a bit of background is necessary.
www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-wont-save-us-qualified-immunity