Three interesting developments in the fight against the doctrine of qualified immunity.
First, from Senior United States District Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York, who continues to hold down a full caseload at 96 years of age with over 51 years of service under his belt on the District Court.
The above link is Weinstein’s recent ruling denying qualified immunity for police officers who beat a person for denying them entry without a warrant. Very good legal commentary that directly challenges the Supreme Court’s current doctrine of qualified immunity and invites the Supreme Court to reconsider it’s precedents on the subject.
Secondly,
The above link is to an abstract of a recent academic paper on the subject of qualified immunity, entitled “The Case Against Qualified Immunity.”
on June 11, the Supreme Court requested a response in the case of Almighty Supreme Born Allah, Petitioner v Lynn Milling, et al. Docket # 17-8654.
The above is the Cato Institute amicus brief in the case.
The Supreme Court has requested a response from Respondent in this case, the Respondent having previously waived his right to respond. While no guarantee at all the Supreme Court will take this case, it is a sign that at least one Justice has taken a very serious interest in the case. The case presents the Supreme Court with the opportunity to substantially modify or abolish the doctrine of qualified immunity.
And if the Supreme Court does take this case and does overturn the doctrine of qualified immunity, I guess I will have to say:
Judges fall under a different doctrine, “absolute immunity.” That is unlikely to change. However, the appellate system and system of precedents at least provides some restraint against bad judges and there are ways of getting rid of or mitigating bad judges.
Police and prosecutorial misconduct are far more dangerous and far more of direct consequence to the average citizen. Getting rid of qualified immunity will go a long way towards reigning in abusive police and prosecutors and make them much more cautious about committing abuses for which they could be brought to court.
I’m not saying it isn’t a good idea and haven’t thought about it much. I can see at least one argument against it…namely that the best people might not be willing to go into police work if they thought they might be liable for everything they own due to one mistake. And the worse people you have in the police, the more likely you are to have problems.
