Winter Garden, FL asked in Civil Litigation and Civil Rights for Florida

Q: If Congress abolished the qualified immunity doctrine, could the Supreme Court ignore Congress and keep using it?

In other words, qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine with no constitutional backing. If Congress explicitly bans its use as a legal defense for government officials in a law, do the courts have to stop using the doctrine altogether?

2 Lawyer Answers
Charles M.  Baron
Charles M. Baron
Answered
  • Civil Rights Lawyer
  • Hollywood, FL
  • Licensed in Florida

A: Good question for a constitutional or civil rights law professor. In my humble opinion, the Courts would have to comply with such legislation unless and until there'd be a successful constitutional challenge to the legislation. Since the qualified immunity doctrine arose via judicial interpretation of a federal law, Congress should have the right to say, "Don't interpret it that way." In layman's terms (NOT judges' terms), the doctrine is basically, "If the officer ignorantly believes he/she is not committing a civil rights violation, he/she is off the hook even if a Court would say afterwards that it is a civil rights violation." This doctrine has deprived may injured/damaged people of justice. While I doubt there would be great odds for a constitutional challenge to such legislation, I would have to conduct in-depth research to be sure - or ask professors.

Bruce Alexander Minnick agrees with this answer

1 user found this answer helpful

Bruce Alexander Minnick
Bruce Alexander Minnick
Answered
  • Civil Rights Lawyer
  • Tallahassee, FL
  • Licensed in Florida

A: I am not sure where you are getting your legal advice about "qualified immunity" from, but this subject is way more complicated than you (and your source) think it is.

Moreover, whoever told you that "the courts created qualified immunity" is wrong because American courts do not have the power to create anything. The American courts adjudicate (decide) stuff, not legislate (create) stuff.

Perhaps you were told that the American courts have adopted the ancient common law rule (or assumption) that all sovereigns (kings) are absolutely is immune from all lawsuits, which is true. This ancient belief is called "sovereign immunity" which means exactly what it says: The King is sovereign and cannot be challenged (sued).

Why? Because a king is a king; and so whatever the king wants is what the king gets--up to a point (i.e. a beheading).

Being ever so quick to adopt neat ideas from the ancient past and use them here, this nation--through legislation--has modified the issue so as to expand the concept of "sovereign immunity" to protect people other than the king--like judges and legislators. Qualified immunity is called that because it is "qualified" and not absolute.

DM me for more tales from the crypts of history.

Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.

The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.

Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.