SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A police officer charges forward as people protest the killing of George Floyd in front of the White House in Washington, D.C. on May 31, 2020. (Photo: Samuel Corum/AFP via Getty Images)
'Deeply Disappointing': Supreme Court Slammed for Refusing to Examine Doctrine That Bolsters Police Immunity
"Recent events demonstrate the urgent need for Congress to stand up for the rule of law and abolish qualified immunity."
Jun 15, 2020
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear several cases involving a longstanding legal doctrine giving police officers and other government officials sweeping immunity from civil lawsuits, a decision that comes in the midst of a nationwide uprising against police brutality and racial injustice.
The doctrine of "qualified immunity" has come under growing criticism from lawmakers and rights groups since the May 25 killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers. As CNBC explained, "the burden imposed by qualified immunity on victims of police violence is exacerbated by the fact that prosecutors rarely charge officers for excessive force violations, often leaving civil lawsuits as the only remaining avenue."
"Qualified immunity shields police from accountability, impedes true justice, and undermines the constitutional rights of every person in this country."
--Rep. Ayanna Pressley
The ACLU petitioned (pdf) the Supreme Court in April of 2019 to examine a 2018 lower court ruling that granted two officers qualified immunity after they unleashed a police dog on a homeless burglary suspect who says he had already surrendered. The man accused the officers of violating his constitutional rights by using excessive force.
In a statement on Monday, ACLU national legal director David Cole called the high court's decision to deny the group's petition "deeply disappointing." Justice Clarence Thomas dissented (pdf) from the decision, arguing the Supreme Court should consider the issue of qualified immunity, which dates back to the high court's 1967 ruling in Pierson v. Ray.
Cole said the court's decision to "punt on the critical issue of official immunity, in this time of national reckoning over police violence, places the ball squarely in Congress' court."
"We have seen the deadly consequences play out on the streets, and black Americans have largely paid the price," said Cole. "Recent events demonstrate the urgent need for Congress to stand up for the rule of law and abolish qualified immunity."
As Amir Ali and Emily Clark wrote in The Appeal last year, qualified immunity "has become one of the chief ways in which law enforcement avoids accountability for misconduct."
"Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials... can be held accountable only insofar as they violate rights that are 'clearly established' in light of existing case law," Ali and Clark wrote. "This standard shields law enforcement, in particular, from innumerable constitutional violations each year."
Earlier this month, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Justin Amash (I-Mich.) introduced legislation to "eliminate qualified immunity and restore Americans' ability to obtain relief when state and local officials, including police officers, violate their legal and constitutionally secured rights."
"Qualified immunity shields police from accountability, impedes true justice, and undermines the constitutional rights of every person in this country," Pressley said in a statement. "There can be no justice without healing and accountability, and there can be no true accountability with qualified immunity. It's past time to end qualified immunity, and that's exactly what this bill does."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear several cases involving a longstanding legal doctrine giving police officers and other government officials sweeping immunity from civil lawsuits, a decision that comes in the midst of a nationwide uprising against police brutality and racial injustice.
The doctrine of "qualified immunity" has come under growing criticism from lawmakers and rights groups since the May 25 killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers. As CNBC explained, "the burden imposed by qualified immunity on victims of police violence is exacerbated by the fact that prosecutors rarely charge officers for excessive force violations, often leaving civil lawsuits as the only remaining avenue."
"Qualified immunity shields police from accountability, impedes true justice, and undermines the constitutional rights of every person in this country."
--Rep. Ayanna Pressley
The ACLU petitioned (pdf) the Supreme Court in April of 2019 to examine a 2018 lower court ruling that granted two officers qualified immunity after they unleashed a police dog on a homeless burglary suspect who says he had already surrendered. The man accused the officers of violating his constitutional rights by using excessive force.
In a statement on Monday, ACLU national legal director David Cole called the high court's decision to deny the group's petition "deeply disappointing." Justice Clarence Thomas dissented (pdf) from the decision, arguing the Supreme Court should consider the issue of qualified immunity, which dates back to the high court's 1967 ruling in Pierson v. Ray.
Cole said the court's decision to "punt on the critical issue of official immunity, in this time of national reckoning over police violence, places the ball squarely in Congress' court."
"We have seen the deadly consequences play out on the streets, and black Americans have largely paid the price," said Cole. "Recent events demonstrate the urgent need for Congress to stand up for the rule of law and abolish qualified immunity."
As Amir Ali and Emily Clark wrote in The Appeal last year, qualified immunity "has become one of the chief ways in which law enforcement avoids accountability for misconduct."
"Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials... can be held accountable only insofar as they violate rights that are 'clearly established' in light of existing case law," Ali and Clark wrote. "This standard shields law enforcement, in particular, from innumerable constitutional violations each year."
Earlier this month, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Justin Amash (I-Mich.) introduced legislation to "eliminate qualified immunity and restore Americans' ability to obtain relief when state and local officials, including police officers, violate their legal and constitutionally secured rights."
"Qualified immunity shields police from accountability, impedes true justice, and undermines the constitutional rights of every person in this country," Pressley said in a statement. "There can be no justice without healing and accountability, and there can be no true accountability with qualified immunity. It's past time to end qualified immunity, and that's exactly what this bill does."
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear several cases involving a longstanding legal doctrine giving police officers and other government officials sweeping immunity from civil lawsuits, a decision that comes in the midst of a nationwide uprising against police brutality and racial injustice.
The doctrine of "qualified immunity" has come under growing criticism from lawmakers and rights groups since the May 25 killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers. As CNBC explained, "the burden imposed by qualified immunity on victims of police violence is exacerbated by the fact that prosecutors rarely charge officers for excessive force violations, often leaving civil lawsuits as the only remaining avenue."
"Qualified immunity shields police from accountability, impedes true justice, and undermines the constitutional rights of every person in this country."
--Rep. Ayanna Pressley
The ACLU petitioned (pdf) the Supreme Court in April of 2019 to examine a 2018 lower court ruling that granted two officers qualified immunity after they unleashed a police dog on a homeless burglary suspect who says he had already surrendered. The man accused the officers of violating his constitutional rights by using excessive force.
In a statement on Monday, ACLU national legal director David Cole called the high court's decision to deny the group's petition "deeply disappointing." Justice Clarence Thomas dissented (pdf) from the decision, arguing the Supreme Court should consider the issue of qualified immunity, which dates back to the high court's 1967 ruling in Pierson v. Ray.
Cole said the court's decision to "punt on the critical issue of official immunity, in this time of national reckoning over police violence, places the ball squarely in Congress' court."
"We have seen the deadly consequences play out on the streets, and black Americans have largely paid the price," said Cole. "Recent events demonstrate the urgent need for Congress to stand up for the rule of law and abolish qualified immunity."
As Amir Ali and Emily Clark wrote in The Appeal last year, qualified immunity "has become one of the chief ways in which law enforcement avoids accountability for misconduct."
"Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials... can be held accountable only insofar as they violate rights that are 'clearly established' in light of existing case law," Ali and Clark wrote. "This standard shields law enforcement, in particular, from innumerable constitutional violations each year."
Earlier this month, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Justin Amash (I-Mich.) introduced legislation to "eliminate qualified immunity and restore Americans' ability to obtain relief when state and local officials, including police officers, violate their legal and constitutionally secured rights."
"Qualified immunity shields police from accountability, impedes true justice, and undermines the constitutional rights of every person in this country," Pressley said in a statement. "There can be no justice without healing and accountability, and there can be no true accountability with qualified immunity. It's past time to end qualified immunity, and that's exactly what this bill does."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.