Qualified Immunity Law Review
Qualified immunity plays a more important role in summary judgments. Defendants have advanced qualified immunity arguments in most of their summary judgment applications.142 And when courts have granted defendants` summary judgment applications in whole or in part, they have invoked qualified immunity in 39.7% of cases.143 Nevertheless, the courts have decided a clear majority of applications on other grounds. In most cases, these urgent applications have been granted in whole or in part because the applicant has not been able to establish a genuine dispute on a substantive question of fact. This conclusion should not surprise at least one member of the Court — Justice Kennedy noted in Wyatt v. Cole that the Court`s summary decisions reduced the need for qualified immunity to protect government officials from trial. As Justice Kennedy explained: The next question, when considering the impact of qualified immunity on the resolution of cases, is how to formulate the denominator – the universe of cases against which cases that are dismissed on grounds of qualified immunity can be measured. In my view, the broadest definition of the denominator – the 1,183 cases brought against law enforcement under section 1983 – gives the clearest picture of the role played by qualified immunity in section 1983 disputes. However, as I will show, there are at least three ways of formulating the denominator, and each answers a different question about the extent to which qualified immunity achieves its intended objectives. My data do not capture the frequency with which qualified immunity influences claimants` settlement decisions or the frequency with which cases are decided on grounds of qualified immunity, although other objections are available.
Rather, my data reflect the frequency with which the granting of qualified immunity formally closes a case. Again, there are marked regional differences in the frequency with which qualified immunity leads to the dismissal of section 1983.109 claims. But, despite these regional differences, qualified applications for fines rarely terminate section 1983 applications prior to discovery and are rarely the reason why applications are dismissed before trial. The Court`s interest in protecting government officials from discovery and trial burdens extends not only to defendants, but also to other government officials who may need to testify, respond to discovery, or otherwise participate in litigation. In Filarsky v. Delia, the court ruled that a private actor hired by the government to perform his work was entitled to qualified immunity, in part because of the “distraction from prosecution. will also often affect all public sector employees they work with by involving those employees in litigation. “42 When the Supreme Court discusses qualified immunity, it seems to assume that qualified immunity is the only obstacle between government officials and discovery and trial. Instead, my study shows that there are other tools that parties can – and often do – use to resolve Section 1983 cases before trial.145 This section examines the frequency with which district courts grant motions for dismissal and summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. As I have shown, qualified immunity is almost always put forward in conjunction with other arguments in applications for dismissal or summary ruling. I focus here on how the District Court evaluates the qualified immunity argument. The Supreme Court should not avoid reviewing qualified immunity for fear that it will significantly increase the impact of prosecutions of government officials.
And advocates of government accountability should recognize that removing qualified immunity would not fundamentally change the dynamic that makes it difficult for plaintiffs to remedy constitutional violations and deter government misconduct. My data show significant regional differences in legal conduct and decision on qualified immunity across the country. The researchers observed that federal counties interpret qualified immunity standards differently.114 My findings suggest that regional differences in the doctrine of qualified immunity influence the decisions of courts and litigants. Defendants in the Southern District of Texas and the Central District of Florida were more likely to increase qualified immunity than defendants in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of California; Courts in the Southern District of Texas and Central Florida County were more likely to grant defendants` claims for qualified immunity than judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of California; and the granting of qualified immunity ended more cases in the Southern District of Texas and the Central District of Florida than in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of California. But even in the Southern District of Texas – the county in my dataset that is most likely to reject cases on grounds of qualified immunity – only 2.3% of all applications were rejected on grounds of qualified immunity at the rejection stage, and 6.9% of all applications were rejected on summary judgment grounds of qualified immunity.115 Unless: the vast majority of law enforcement officers charged in the Southern District of Texas are “clearly incompetent” or have “knowingly violated the law”,116 Qualified immunity doesn`t even play a role in the county in my most defense-friendly case. These predictions should reassure the court`s judges, who fear that the abolition of qualified immunity could endanger policing or “society as a whole.” 25 25 Weiß v. Pauly, 137 p. ct. 548, 551 (2017) (cited City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 pp.
ct. 1765, 1774 n.3 (2015)). Close But these predictions should also dampen the optimism of critics of the doctrine.