Legal Sidebari
Policing the Police: Qualified Immunity and
Considerations for Congress
Updated June 25, 2020
In the wake of unrest arising from George Floyd’s death on May 25, 2020, after a Minneapolis police
officer pressed a knee into his neck, broader questions have arisen with regard to how existing law
regulates the conduct of local police officers. While these issues are explored more broadly in these
separate Sidebars, one particular issue of recent judicial and legislative focus has been the doctrine of
qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a judicial y created doctrine shielding public officials who are
performing discretionary functions from civil liability. The doctrine plays a particularly prominent role in
defense of civil rights lawsuits against federal law enforcement officials under the Bivens doctrine and
against state and local police under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983). With regard to its role in civil
lawsuits concerning violations of constitutional norms regulating the police, defenders of the doctrine
have suggested that qualified immunity plays an important role in affording police officers some level of
deference when making split-second decisions about whether to, for example, use force to subdue a
fleeing or resisting suspect. Critics of the doctrine have questioned its legal origins and have argued that
its practice has provided too much deference to the police at the expense of accountability and the erosion
of criminal suspects’ constitutional rights. With increasing focus on whether Congress should legislate to
abrogate or otherwise modify the doctrine, this Sidebar explores the legal basis for qualified immunity,
how it has operated in practice, and current debate over the efficacy of the doctrine. The Sidebar
concludes by discussing considerations for Congress regarding qualified immunity.
What Is Qualified Immunity?
Qualified immunity is a judicial y created legal doctrine that shields government officials performing
discretionary duties from civil liability in cases involving the deprivation of statutory or constitutional
rights. Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their actions do not violate
“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
The Supreme Court has observed that qualified immunity balances two important interests—“the need to
hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials
from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” The immunity’s
broad protection is intended for “al but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law ”
and to give government officials “breathing room” to make reasonable mistakes of fact and law.
According to the Supreme Court, the “driving force” behind qualified immunity was to ensure that
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10492
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
“insubstantial claims” against government officials were resolved at the outset of the lawsuit. Qualified
immunity, when applied, provides immunity not only from civil damages, but from having to defend
liability altogether.
Courts apply a two-part analysis when determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity:
(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff amount to a constitutional violation, and (2) if so, whether
the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the misconduct. Recent Supreme Court
precedent provides flexibility in applying this standard, granting courts the discretion to decide which
prong to first address in light of the circumstances of the facts of the case at hand. Whether a right is
clearly established depends on whether “the contours of a right are sufficiently clear” so that every
“reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” When conducting
this analysis, courts look to see whether it is “beyond debate” that existing legal precedent establishes the
illegality of the conduct.”
Qualified immunity is available for local and state government officials such as, for example, law
enforcement officers, teachers, or social workers. Federal officials who face liability in cases brought
under the Bivens doctrine—which al ows for individuals to recover for the deprivation of constitutional
rights against federal officials in a few, limited circumstances—may also claim qualified immunity.
Historical Development of Qualified Immunity
The Supreme Court developed qualified immunity as part of its interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of
1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act) and its codified cause of action at Section 1983. That statute
provides a cause of action for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws” by any person acting “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory.” As applied to the conduct of police officers, Section 1983 provides a
legal remedy for individuals claiming that their constitutional rights, such as the right to be free from
excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, were violated by state or local police acting pursuant to
state or local law. According to the Supreme Court, Section 1983 is a “vital component . . . for vindicating
cherished constitutional guarantees,” as the law has been viewed much like common law tort actions
which deter against wrongful actions. (While Section 1983 facial y applies only to those acting under
state law, the Court functional y expanded its application when it recognized an implied damages claim
for Fourth Amendment violations by federal law enforcement officers in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
Narcotics Agents.)
While the modern qualified immunity test was first set forth in the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the concept of qualified immunity as a “good faith defense“ has origins in common
law. The Court first extended a “good faith defense” to police officers in a Section 1983 case in its 1967
decision Pierson v. Ray. There, the Court held that Section 1983 “should be read against the background
of tort liability that makes a man responsible for the natural consequences of his actions,” and therefore,
common law defenses such as good faith were applicable to actions brought under Section 1983. The
Court determined that although they were not expressly included in Section 1983, there was no evidence
in the legislative record that Congress intended to abolish common law immunities.
Fifteen years later in Harlow, the Court—while again recognizing that the common law afforded
government officials some level of immunity to “shield them from undue interference with their duties
and from potential y disabling threats of liability”—distinguished qualified immunity from absolute
immunity. Absolute immunity provides a complete immunity from civil liability and is usual y extended
to, for example, the President of the United States, legislators, judges, and prosecutors acting in their
official duties. Absolute immunity, according to the Court, provides high-level officials a “greater
protection than those with less complex discretionary responsibilities,” however; for other government
officials, qualified immunity is stil necessary, in the Court’s view, to balance “the importance of a
Congressional Research Service
3
damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens” with “the need to protect officials who are required to
exercise their discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official
authority.” Thus, the Court established the modern objective test, granting qualified immunity to those
government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
of which a reasonable person would have known.”
In the years since Harlow, the Supreme Court has continued to refine and expand the reach of the
doctrine. For example, one legal scholar examined eighteen qualified immunity cases that the Supreme
Court heard from 2000 until 2016, al considering whether a particular constitutional right was clearly
established. In sixteen of those cases, many of which involved police use of excessive force in violation
of the Fourth Amendment, the Court found that the government officials were entitled to qualified
immunity because they did not act in violation of clearly established law. In deciding what constitutes
clearly established law, the Court has focused on the “generality at which the relevant legal rule is to be
identified.” Recently, the Court has emphasized that the clearly established right must be defined with
specificity, such that even minor differences between the case at hand and the case in which the relevant
legal right claimed to be violated was first established, can immunize the defendant police officer. For
example, in the 2019 case City of Escondido, California v. Emmons, the Court reviewed a claim brought
by a man who al eged police used excessive force in arresting him. Following past incidents of domestic
abuse by a husband against his wife, police in Escondido, California, responded to a domestic disturbance
call at the residence of the couple. After failing to make contact with anyone inside the home, a man—
who later turned out to be the wife’s father—eventual y opened the door and passively brushed past the
police. An officer took the man to the ground and handcuffed him, al egedly injuring him in the process.
In holding the officer was entitled to qualified immunity, the Court explained that the appropriate inquiry
is not whether the officer violated the man’s clearly established right to general y be free from excessive
force, but whether clearly established law “prohibited the officers from stopping and taking down a man
in these circumstances.” In so holding, the Court rejected the lower court’s attempts to analogize this case
to another that general y involved the use of excessive force in response to passive resistance by a
criminal suspect. Instead, the Court, citing other recent precedent, stressed the need to “identify a case
where an officer under similar circumstances was held to violate the Fourth Amendment.”
The Debate over Qualified Immunity
As courts have expanded the protections of qualified immunity over the years, criticism of the doctrine
has also increased. At least three major criticisms of the doctrine have emerged. First, some scholars have
argued that qualified immunity has no basis in the common law—the body of law from where the Court
determined the doctrine originated. In a recent concurrence, Justice Thomas advocated for reconsidering
the Court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence on these grounds, arguing that the modern doctrine bears
little resemblance to the common law immunity and instead represents a “freewheeling policy choice”
that the Court lacks the power to make and usurps the role of Congress.
Other criticisms of the doctrine focus more on its practical applications, with some arguing that qualified
immunity no longer achieves its policy goals of protecting public officials from the expense and
distraction of litigation, and from the danger that the fear of being sued wil prevent officials from
performing their duties or from entering public service altogether. For example, Justice Breyer has argued
that indemnification by police departments of their employees may al eviate employees’ concerns about
facing liability upon accepting employment. And according to one study, police officers are “virtual y
always indemnified,”—meaning even if they are found liable for their own individual conduct, the city or
county covers any monetary damages.
And there is some concern that the level of specificity required has made it increasingly difficult for
plaintiffs to show that the law was clearly established—which some scholars have argued may jeopardize
the purpose of Section 1983 as a tool for al owing individuals to recover for constitutional violations.
Congressional Research Service
4
Justice Sotomayor, in dissenting in several cases in which the Court found officers were entitled to
qualified immunity, expressed her disfavor with the modern approach, fearing its application essential y
provides an absolute shield for law enforcement officers and “renders the protections of the Fourth
Amendment hollow.” And some statistics may support this hypothesis. According to one recent study,
appel ate courts have shown an increasing tendency to grant qualified immunity, particularly in excessive
force cases. From 2005 to 2007, for example, 44 percent of courts favored police in excessive force cases.
That number jumped to 57 percent in excessive force cases decided from 2017 to 2019.
The modern application of qualified immunity, however, is not without its proponents. Throughout its
qualified immunity jurisprudence involving the police, a majority of the Supreme Court has emphasized
the important role the doctrine plays in al owing law enforcement the flexibility to make judgment cal s in
rapidly evolving situations. According to one defender of the doctrine, members of law enforcement find
it “comforting” to know the doctrine protects al but “the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly
violate the law.” And although a majority of jurisdictions may indemnify police officers, some do not—
leaving officers at risk of personal financial liability. Other scholars have defended qualified immunity on
stare decisis grounds (i.e., the doctrine that promotes maintaining long settled interpretations of the law—
especial y statutes—absent a special justification), while questioning both the historical and practical
arguments lodged against the doctrine. And some studies, while perhaps also undermining the need for
the doctrine, may also refute the concern that qualified immunity is a significant barrier to recovery under
Section 1983. For example, according to one study, “qualified immunity is rarely the formal reason that
civil rights damages actions against law enforcement end.”
Considerations for Congress
As the debate over qualified immunity continues, there is discussion over which branch of government
should be responsible for reforming the doctrine. Because qualified immunity is judicial y created, the
Supreme Court may, as it has in the past, choose to revise the doctrine. As mentioned above, some
justices—for varying reasons—believe the modern application of qualified immunity should be
reexamined. And some observers suggest that the Court may be preparing to reconsider the doctrine. The
Court is currently considering multiple petitions for certiorari in cases that involve chal enges to qualified
immunity. Other scholars, however, express skepticism that the Roberts Court wil reverse course on its
expansion of the doctrine, pointing out that the Court is general y reluctant to overturn its interpretation of
statutes. Another group of scholars suggest that even if it does not completely repeal the doctrine, the
Court may choose to revisit its prior precedent to “better align” qualified immunity with its original y
intended role. The Court, however, recently rejected a number of petitions to review cases involving
qualified immunity.
Even without action from the Court, there may be a potential role for Congress in revising qualified
immunity. Because qualified immunity is a product of statutory interpretation, Congress has wide
authority to amend, expand, or even abolish the doctrine. For example, H.R. 7085—the Ending Qualified
Immunity Act—would amend Section 1983 by abolishing both the “good faith” defense and the defense
that the law was not clearly established at the time of the al eged misconduct. A similar proposal—limited
to cases brought against certain state and local police officers and federal investigative or law
enforcement officers, as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)—is found in the Justice in Policing Act of 2020.
These proposals would effectively eliminate the judicial y created doctrine applied in modern Section
1983 litigation and in any actions against federal law enforcement officers.
Another proposal aimed at removing barriers to Section 1983 liability is the Reforming Qualified
Immunity Act. Unlike current law, which grants officials qualified immunity if the constitutional right
al eged to have been violated is not “clearly established,” this proposal would place the burden on Section
1983 defendants to affirmatively show with some particularity that the conduct at issue has been
authorized by law. Specifical y, the proposal would seek to remove the existing doctrine of qualified
Congressional Research Service
5
immunity and instead provide that an individual defendant “shal not be liable” if the defendant
reasonably believed that his or her conduct was lawful and either (1) the conduct at issue was
“specifical y authorized or required” by federal or state law, or (2) a federal or state court had issued a
final decision holding that “the specific conduct al eged to be unlawful was consistent with the
Constitution of the United States and Federal laws.”
Questions could remain, however, as to whether eliminating the doctrine in Section 1983 cases or beyond
properly calibrates the competing interests that drove the Supreme Court to recognize qualified immunity
in the first place. There may also be questions about whether eliminating qualified immunity for state law
enforcement agents (or some subset of state actors) under Section 1983—as several proposals would do—
would create an anomaly where the doctrine would stil exist for federal law enforcement agents under
Bivens. And eliminating qualified immunity entirely—as other legislation proposes—would appear to
have effects beyond state and local police officers, as the doctrine extends to al government employees
who make discretionary decisions in their work.
As an alternative, Congress could instead choose to scale back qualified immunity to more limited
circumstances. For example, Congress could limit the reach of the doctrine to only certain government
actors (as the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 does) or limit the doctrine’s application in cases where
certain rights are at stake, such as Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. Or, similar to the
Reforming Qualified Immunity Act, Congress may choose to impose a new statutory test to apply to state
and local actors sued in their individual capacities. Congress could also abrogate recent Supreme Court
jurisprudence requiring a high level of specificity for a finding of “clearly established” law.
And beyond the doctrine of qualified immunity, Congress could, as some have suggested, explore
reforming or eliminating the separate immunity rules set forth in Monell v. Department of Social Services.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that while a municipality is a “person” subject to suit under Section
1983, a local government cannot be sued “for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents” under
the theory of respondeat superior (the legal doctrine that an employer may be liable to suit for wrongful
acts of its employees). Some have suggested that the Reforming Qualified Immunity Act would revise the
Monell rule by providing that “a municipality or other unit of local government shal be liable for a
violation [of Section 1983] by an agent or employee of the municipality or other unit of local government
acting within the scope of his or her employment,” in effect applying the doctrine of respondeat superior
to such governmental entities.
Author Information
Whitney K. Novak
Legislative Attorney
Disclaimer
Congressional Research Service
6
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
LSB10492 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED