{"id":54787,"date":"2023-03-24T13:42:59","date_gmt":"2023-03-24T18:42:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/supreme-court-insights\/pros-vs-cons-of-qualified-immunity-both-sides-of-debate.html"},"modified":"2023-03-24T13:42:59","modified_gmt":"2023-03-24T18:42:59","slug":"pros-vs-cons-of-qualified-immunity-both-sides-of-debate","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/supreme-court-insights\/pros-vs-cons-of-qualified-immunity-both-sides-of-debate.html","title":{"rendered":"Pros vs Cons of Qualified Immunity: Both Sides of Debate"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Qualified Immunity: Both Sides of the Debate<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n By Joseph Fawbush, Esq.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Ally Marshall, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last updated\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n

Qualified immunity provides protection from civil lawsuits for law enforcement officers and other public officials. It attempts to balance the need to allow public officials to do their jobs with the need to hold bad actors accountable.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Proponents of qualified immunity argue that without a liability shield, public officials and law enforcement officers would be constantly sued and second-guessed in courts. Critics say the doctrine has led to law enforcement officers being able to violate the rights of citizens, particularly disenfranchised citizens, without repercussion.<\/p>\n

Qualified immunity is not the result of a law passed by Congress, nor is it written in the Constitution<\/a>. It is instead a legal doctrine refined by the U.S. Supreme Court. First outlined in 1967, it has since been greatly expanded. Qualified immunity is largely a creation of the courts, one that is not based on the U.S. Constitution. As such, Congress could pass a law amending, affirming, or revoking qualified immunity at any time. It has so far declined to do so. However, both lawmakers and current Supreme Court justices have considered amending or revoking qualified immunity as it currently stands.<\/p>\n

Understanding the pros and cons of this once obscure legal doctrine requires some knowledge of the surrounding legal issues and why qualified immunity was created in the first place. This article will briefly recount the history of qualified immunity, how it is applied in courts today, and the pros and cons it affords society.<\/p>\n

Click on a link below to go to that section:<\/p>\n