By Abbey Mullins

 

What is Qualified Immunity?

 

Qualified immunity is a defense that government officials can raise when they are sued for violating the constitutional or statutory rights of individuals. The defense was not created by a law passed by Congress. Instead, it was created by the Supreme Court in 1967. It has since evolved into the biggest hurdle plaintiffs must clear when they attempt to hold government officials, especially law enforcement officers, accountable for their actions. 

 

Qualified immunity does not only apply to police officers. The defense is also available to nearly anyone who works for the government, like teachers and social workers, who are being sued for constitutional violations. It is also important to note that qualified immunity is not available as a defense when officials are being criminally prosecuted – it only applies in civil cases.

 

How Can Qualified Immunity be Avoided?

 

The doctrine protects officials from being sued unless a plaintiff can satisfy both parts of a two-part test. 

 

First, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct actually violated a constitutional or statutory right.

 

Second, the plaintiff must prove the right was “clearly established” at the time the misconduct occurred. This requires identifying a prior case with similar facts where such conduct was deemed illegal and the official was held accountable. Judges have a lot of discretion here, and some may want the facts of the previous case to be nearly identical. 

 

Why Does Qualified Immunity Exist?

 

The logic behind qualified immunity is that it allows government officials to perform their jobs effectively without fear of being bombarded with lawsuits in instances where they could not have known that their conduct was against the law or they make reasonable mistakes of law or fact. It is intended to shield officials from frivolous lawsuits while still holding them accountable when they knowingly or willingly abuse their power.

Some Applications of Qualified Immunity

 

The following are some instances where officials were granted qualified immunity: 

• In Corbitt v. Vickers, a case out of Georgia, a police officer was granted qualified immunity when he accidentally shot a ten year old child while attempting to shoot the family’s dog. The officer did not dispute the fact that neither the child, identified as “SDC,” nor the family dog, Bruce, posed any threat in the situation.

• In Betz v. Satteson, a teacher was entitled to qualified immunity when she was sued for making bodily contact with a student as she attempted to prevent him from running out of the building.

• In Jessop v. City of Fresno, police officers were granted qualified immunity after they allegedly stole roughly $275,000 ($150,000 in cash and $125,000 in rare coins) from the plaintiffs while executing a search warrant. In that case, the court stated that while it “sympathized with the plaintiffs,” they had no clearly established constitutional right to be free from theft of property seized pursuant to a warrant.

 

It is important to remember that qualified immunity is not always successful. There are many instances where courts have rejected the defense. Here are two recent examples from the Court of Appeals that hears cases from Tennessee:

• In April 2025, the Sixth Circuit denied qualified immunity to a correctional officer, holding that it was clearly established that using force against a compliant inmate for the sole purpose of inflicting pain was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Erickson v. Gogebic County, Michigan). 

• In April 2024, the Sixth Circuit denied qualified immunity to a police officer, holding that it was clearly established that shooting an individual who was not resisting with a stun gun was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Saalim v. Walmart, Inc.). 

 

In very extreme cases, courts have held that officials are not entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct was so egregious that no reasonable official could think the conduct was permissible. Perhaps the most notable case in which this exception was applied involved prison guards who kept an inmate in a “shockingly unsanitary” cell for six days. (Taylor v. Riojas).

 

As public awareness of qualified immunity grows, many advocates and lawmakers are calling for meaningful reform to the doctrine. Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has written a number of dissents critiquing the doctrine, arguing that it should be reevaluated because it is neither mentioned in the Constitution nor created by Congress. 

 

It is important to remember that while qualified immunity poses a hurdle in civil rights cases, it is a hurdle that can often be overcome. If you believe your rights have been violated by a government official, we are here to help. Contact our office to discuss your legal options.