What Is Qualified Immunity
Qualified immunity is a rule the Supreme Court created that shields government officials from paying damages when they violate someone’s constitutional rights, unless the right was “clearly established” at the time. In practice, courts ask the victim to point to an earlier ruling that found a violation by an officer in similar circumstances. If there is none, the case ends, even when the court agrees a right was violated. It protects officials from money damages, not from criminal charges or being fired.
Qualified immunity appears in no statute. The Supreme Court built it on its own. It limits an 1871 civil rights law and often decides whether a victim of a clear violation ever reaches a jury.
Key facts
- The Court created it in Pierson v. Ray (1967) and rebuilt it in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982).
- It limits suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which says officials who violate rights “shall be liable.”
- Courts generally need a prior case with similar facts, the Court repeated in Zorn v. Linton (March 2026).
- It blocks only money damages, not prosecution or firing (Congressional Research Service).
- Governments paid about 99.98% of what plaintiffs won in police civil rights suits (NYU Law Review).
The court record in Corbitt v. Vickers shows how the rule plays out. On July 10, 2014, deputies chasing a suspect ordered everyone in Amy Corbitt’s yard in Coffee County, Georgia, onto the ground, including six children. Deputy Michael Vickers fired twice at the family dog, Bruce, who threatened no one. The second shot missed the dog and struck Corbitt’s 10-year-old son in the back of the right knee. The boy was lying face down “approximately eighteen inches” from Vickers, as ordered, according to the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion. The court granted Vickers immunity in 2019. It said it could not find “any settled Fourth Amendment principle” covering force that was not aimed at the person it hurt. Our 4th Amendment explainer covers how the Supreme Court now judges police force.
If an Official Violated Your Rights
Qualified immunity is a defense an official raises after you sue, so it should not stop you from getting advice. Deadlines are short, and some claims are not blocked by it at all. This is general information, not legal advice. A civil rights lawyer can tell you what applies to your case.
What to do, by situation
A police officer or other official hurt me or searched me illegally, and I want to sue.
- Write down names, badge numbers, the time and place, and who saw it. Save videos, photos, medical records and any police report.
- Talk to a civil rights lawyer soon. A § 1983 suit borrows your state's personal-injury deadline, which is as short as one year in some states.
- Ask about state-law claims too. In Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Montana and New York City, qualified immunity does not apply to some state constitutional claims.
- File a complaint with the department or a civilian oversight board if you want discipline. That is separate from a lawsuit and does not replace one.
The Supreme Court set the § 1983 deadline rule in Owens v. Okure (1989).
A judge dismissed my case on qualified immunity.
- Ask your lawyer about an appeal right away. In federal court, a notice of appeal is usually due within 30 days of the judgment.
- Ask whether you can sue the city or county. A local government cannot claim qualified immunity, though you must show its policy or custom caused the harm.
- Ask about a court order to stop ongoing conduct. Qualified immunity does not block that kind of relief.
Cities cannot claim the immunity their officers can, under Owen v. City of Independence (1980).
I want the officer charged with a crime.
- Qualified immunity does not block criminal charges. Report the conduct to your local district attorney or state attorney general.
- You can also report it to the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division through its online reporting portal.
How a Qualified Immunity Case Moves Through Court
Most qualified immunity fights happen before any jury hears the facts. The official asks the judge to end the case early, and the whole contest turns on whether an earlier ruling already covered the conduct.
How a qualified immunity case moves through federal court
- Day 1 The victim sues under § 1983 The 1871 law says officials who violate rights "shall be liable." It mentions no immunity.
- Before discovery The official asks to end the case Courts decide immunity as early as possible, often before the victim can gather evidence.
- Optional since 2009 Was a right violated? Pearson v. Callahan lets judges skip this question and go straight to the next one.
- Decides most cases Was the right clearly established? The victim generally needs a prior ruling against an officer "acting under similar circumstances" (Zorn v. Linton, 2026).
- Before any trial The official can appeal at once A judge's denial of immunity can be appealed before trial, which pauses the case (Mitchell v. Forsyth, 1985).
- Months to years Trial, or the case ends If immunity is denied and upheld, the case goes to a jury. If granted, it is over.
Sources: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Pearson v. Callahan (2009); Mitchell v. Forsyth (1985); Zorn v. Linton (2026).
The third step is where precedent stops growing. Courts once had to decide the constitutional question first, which slowly built up case law. Pearson v. Callahan made that optional in 2009, so a court can grant immunity without ever ruling on whether a right was violated. The next victim of the same conduct then has no ruling to point to, and the same thing happens again.
The fourth step is where most cases are won or lost. In Zorn v. Linton, decided March 23, 2026, the Court said the earlier ruling must define the right with a “high degree of specificity.” A Vermont sergeant had used a rear wristlock on a protester who was passively refusing to stand, after warning her he would use force. The Second Circuit pointed to its own 2004 ruling on wristlocks used against protesters. The Supreme Court reversed 6-3 without full briefing, saying that ruling did not settle whether a wristlock used after repeated warnings was excessive.
There is one narrow exception. When a violation is obvious, no matching case is required. In Taylor v. Riojas (2020), the Court ruled that prison officers who held a man for six days in a cell covered in feces, then in a frigid cell where he slept naked in sewage, were not entitled to immunity, because “any reasonable officer” should have known that was unconstitutional.
What qualified immunity does and does not block
Source: Congressional Research Service; Cornell LII
The doctrine reaches well beyond local police. It covers most state and local officials through § 1983, and federal officials through the Bivens doctrine (Butz v. Economou, 1978).
Cases Where Courts Granted Immunity
The strongest argument against the doctrine is the conduct it has protected. The test asks whether a prior case matched, not how serious the conduct was, so judges have granted immunity for acts they called wrong.
Conduct courts found troubling, with immunity granted anyway
Source: Court opinions (Ninth, Eleventh and Sixth Circuits); Supreme Court docket
The Fresno case turned on an accounting gap. Officers listed about $50,000 as seized. Micah Jessop and Brittan Ashjian alleged the officers actually took $151,380 in cash and $125,000 in rare coins, leaving more than $225,000 unaccounted for. The Ninth Circuit wrote that it recognized “that theft is morally wrong,” but that “does not, however, answer the legal question presented in this case.” The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal in 2020.
Baxter put the loop in plain view. The Supreme Court denied review on June 15, 2020, along with several other petitions asking it to reconsider the doctrine. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
Our § 1983 qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text.
Justice Clarence Thomas, dissent from denial of certiorari, Baxter v. Bracey, 2020
The pattern continues. In May 2021 the Eleventh Circuit upheld immunity for the commander of a no-knock raid on the McDonough, Georgia, home of Onree Norris. More than 24 officers took part, and they threw two flash grenades. The warrant was for the house next door (Eleventh Circuit opinion). In April 2026 the Supreme Court vacated a Ninth Circuit ruling that had let the family of Roy Scott take their case to a jury. Scott, unarmed and in mental distress, had called Las Vegas police for help and died after an officer put his body weight on Scott’s back and neck while he lay on his stomach. It sent the case back to be reconsidered under Zorn (Supreme Court docket 24-1099).
How Often Qualified Immunity Decides a Case
Appeals courts grant the defense more often than they used to. Reuters reviewed 529 federal appeals rulings from 2005 to 2019 in excessive-force cases where officers raised qualified immunity.
| Period | Value |
|---|---|
| 2005-2007 | 44% |
| 2017-2019 | 57% |
| Change | +13 pts |
The Supreme Court’s own docket leans the same way. From 2005 to 2018, officers’ petitions in these cases were 3.5 times more likely to be granted than civilians’ petitions, according to the same Reuters analysis. Justice Sonia Sotomayor made the same point in her Zorn dissent. She wrote of the Court’s “troubling asymmetry”: it is quick to reverse courts that deny officers immunity and rarely steps in when courts wrongly grant it.
Trial courts tell a different story. Joanna Schwartz of UCLA studied 1,183 police cases in five federal districts. Qualified immunity was the reason for dismissal in 3.9% of the 979 cases where it could be raised (Yale Law Journal, 2017). The two studies measure different stages. Most cases end for other reasons, but the cases that reach an appeals court increasingly end in immunity. Schwartz concluded the doctrine “rarely served its intended role” of sparing officials from discovery and trial.
Where the Doctrine Came From
The doctrine grew in steps, from an 1871 civil rights law with no immunity in it to a Supreme Court that still enforces a strict version today. The Court created a good-faith defense in 1967 and replaced it with the “clearly established” test in 1982. In 2009 it stopped requiring courts to build precedent, in 2020 it declined to revisit the doctrine, and in 2026 it tightened the test again. States began splitting in 2020.
- Congress passes the civil rights law Section 1983 lets people sue officials who violate their rights "under color of" law.
- Pierson v. Ray creates immunity The Court recognizes a "good faith" defense for police, found in no statute.
- Harlow sets the modern test The Court swaps good faith for the objective "clearly established" standard.
- Pearson freezes precedent Courts may skip the constitutional question, so new rulings rarely form.
- The Court declines to reconsider The justices deny review in Baxter and related cases; Thomas dissents.
- Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada act Two statutes and one court ruling bar the defense for state constitutional claims.
- Louisiana and Alabama expand it Both states shield officers from state civil claims over discretionary acts.
- Zorn v. Linton A 6-3 summary reversal demands prior cases with a "high degree of specificity."
Sources: Cornell LII; Supreme Court opinions; State Court Report; state statutes.
From the 1871 civil rights law to the 2026 Zorn ruling: 1871: Congress passes the civil rights law (Section 1983 lets people sue officials who violate their rights "under color of" law.). 1967: Pierson v. Ray creates immunity (The Court recognizes a "good faith" defense for police, found in no statute.). 1982: Harlow sets the modern test (The Court swaps good faith for the objective "clearly established" standard.). 2009: Pearson freezes precedent (Courts may skip the constitutional question, so new rulings rarely form.). 2020: The Court declines to reconsider (The justices deny review in Baxter and related cases; Thomas dissents.). 2020-2022: Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada act (Two statutes and one court ruling bar the defense for state constitutional claims.). 2024-2025: Louisiana and Alabama expand it (Both states shield officers from state civil claims over discretionary acts.). 2026: Zorn v. Linton (A 6-3 summary reversal demands prior cases with a "high degree of specificity.").
1871: Congress passed the civil rights law now codified at § 1983, letting people sue state and local officials who violate their rights “under color of” law. The text says such officials “shall be liable,” with no immunity written in. The Court revived the law as a practical tool in Monroe v. Pape (1961).
1967: In Pierson v. Ray the Court recognized a “good faith” defense for police. The case involved officers who arrested clergy members for using a segregated bus terminal waiting room.
1982: In Harlow v. Fitzgerald the Court replaced the good-faith inquiry with the objective “clearly established” test still used today. The test turns on prior case law, not on the official’s intent.
2009: In Pearson v. Callahan the Court let judges grant immunity on the “clearly established” question alone, without deciding whether a right was violated.
2020: The Court declined to reconsider the doctrine, denying review in Baxter v. Bracey and several related petitions. Justice Thomas dissented.
2020-2022: Colorado (2020) and New Mexico (2021) passed laws barring the defense for state constitutional claims. The Nevada Supreme Court reached the same result for search-and-seizure claims in Mack v. Williams (2022).
2024-2025: Louisiana and Alabama moved the other way. Louisiana’s Act 16 of 2024 bars civil damage claims against officers over discretionary acts on duty, except for criminal, fraudulent, or intentional misconduct (Act 16). Alabama’s Act 2025-423 shields officers from state civil claims unless they acted recklessly without justification or violated a clearly established state right, and it lets officers seek dismissal of criminal charges over justified force before trial (HB 202, enrolled).
2026: In Zorn v. Linton the Court summarily reversed a denial of immunity 6-3, and a month later it cited Zorn to send the Roy Scott case back to the Ninth Circuit.
Critics across the spectrum argue the doctrine lacks a basis in the statute. William Baude argued in “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?” (2018) that nothing in § 1983 supports it. Alexander Reinert’s “Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation” (2023) argues that the original 1871 text included a clause rejecting such defenses, one dropped when the law was compiled in 1874.
Which States Have Ended Qualified Immunity
No state can remove the federal defense in a federal § 1983 suit. What a state can do is let people sue in state court for violations of the state constitution and bar qualified immunity there. Five jurisdictions have done that and three have limited it. Iowa (2021), Louisiana (2024) and Alabama (2025) moved the other way and widened officers’ protection under state law.
State and local laws on qualified immunity for state-law claims, as of September 2026
Source: State Court Report (Gildin, 2024); state statutes and court rulings; Louisiana Act 16 (2024); Alabama Act 2025-423
New York may be next. A bill from Sen. Robert Jackson (S. 176) would create a state claim for rights violations and bar qualified immunity, but it has sat in the Senate Codes Committee since January 2026.
Everywhere else, federal qualified immunity governs § 1983 suits, and whether you can sue an officer under your state’s constitution depends on state law. Colorado’s law is being used. In 2024 a Colorado appeals court reversed the dismissal of an excessive-force suit brought under it, and qualified immunity did not protect the officer, according to State Court Report.
Congress is split along the same line, and nothing has moved. As of October 2026, Congress.gov shows all of these bills still in committee, with no action since they were referred:
- The Ending Qualified Immunity Act (H.R. 3602 and S. 1913, from Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Sen. Ed Markey, May 2025) would remove the defense for every official sued under § 1983.
- The Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026 (H.R. 7046 and S. 3625, January 2026) would remove it for law enforcement officers only.
- The Qualified Immunity Act of 2025 (S. 122 from Sen. Jim Banks and H.R. 503 from Rep. Virginia Foxx) would write the doctrine into federal law.
- The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2025 (H.R. 5361, from Rep. Glenn Ivey, September 2025) would bar the defense for local and federal law enforcement officers. It has 136 cosponsors, none of them Republicans.
Earlier versions of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act passed the House in 2020 and 2021 and died in the Senate both times. The current Supreme Court is enforcing the doctrine, not reconsidering it, so the path to change runs through Congress and the states.
For the rights these suits protect, see our due process explainer and our habeas corpus explainer.
Victims of Clear Violations Get No Day in Court
The cost of qualified immunity falls on people who have already been wronged. When it applies, the victim gets no money and no trial, and no court says what the official did was unconstitutional. Because courts can skip that question, the next victim of the same conduct faces the same wall.
The doctrine does not decide who pays when an officer loses. Local governments already do. Schwartz found governments paid about 99.98% of the dollars plaintiffs recovered in police civil rights cases, and officers almost never paid anything, even when they were fired or prosecuted (NYU Law Review, 2014).
Public support for change is broad. In a 2020 Cato Institute and YouGov survey, 63% of Americans favored eliminating qualified immunity for police (Cato). A Pew survey the same year found 66% said civilians need the power to sue officers for misconduct, even if it makes the job harder.
The Case For and Against Qualified Immunity
The strongest defense of qualified immunity deserves a fair hearing. Officers make split-second decisions, often in danger and with incomplete information. The Supreme Court has said the doctrine protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,” and that officials need room to do their jobs without fearing a suit over every judgment call. Police organizations argue that removing it would make recruiting harder and invite more lawsuits.
Critics answer with the evidence on who pays. Because governments cover nearly all judgments, they argue, ending the doctrine would mainly change whether victims are compensated, not whether individual officers face ruin. They point to cases like Jessop and Corbitt, where the test shielded conduct no one defended, because it asks about prior cases rather than how serious the conduct was.
The data does not settle the argument for either side. Schwartz’s finding that the defense rarely ends cases at the trial level is cited by defenders, who say its real-world effect is small, and by critics, who say it fails at its stated purpose while still costing victims time and money. Reuters’ finding that appeals courts grant it more often cuts the other way.
Libertarian groups such as the Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice, and progressive groups such as the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, back reform, while police organizations defend the current rule. We do not declare a winner on how much room officers should have in a fast-moving encounter. The point of agreement across that coalition is narrower: a test that shields deliberate misconduct as easily as an honest mistake is the wrong test.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does qualified immunity protect police from criminal charges?
No. Qualified immunity is a defense only against civil lawsuits for money damages. The Supreme Court has said it is not available in criminal cases or in suits asking a court to stop the conduct, so an officer can still be prosecuted or ordered to stop.
Does qualified immunity apply to officials other than police?
Yes. It covers most state and local officials making discretionary decisions, and federal officials through the Bivens doctrine. Judges, prosecutors, and legislators have separate, broader immunities that are not the same thing as qualified immunity.
How do officers lose qualified immunity in court?
The victim has to show a clearly established right: usually a prior ruling against an officer in similar circumstances, or conduct so obviously unconstitutional that no prior case is needed. The Supreme Court used that second route in 2020 for prison officers who held a man for six days in a cell covered in feces and then in a frigid cell where he slept naked in sewage.
What is the difference between the federal bills?
The Ending Qualified Immunity Act (H.R. 3602 and S. 1913) removes the defense for every official sued under § 1983. The Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026 (H.R. 7046 and S. 3625) removes it only for law enforcement officers. The Qualified Immunity Act of 2025 (S. 122 and H.R. 503) would write it into law. All were still in committee as of October 14, 2026.
What You Can Do
-
If you or someone you know was harmed by an official, talk to a civil rights lawyer before the deadline passes. The situation guide above lists what to save and ask.
-
Ask your state legislators to follow Colorado and New Mexico. A state civil rights claim that bars qualified immunity lets victims sue in state court, whatever Congress does. Name those two laws as the models.
-
If your state is weighing a bill like Iowa’s, Louisiana’s or Alabama’s, testify or write to your legislators before the committee vote. Iowa’s 2021 law gave both officers and cities a “clearly established” defense against state claims. Louisiana’s bars most civil damage claims over officers’ discretionary acts, and Alabama’s adds immunity from criminal charges over justified force.
-
Ask your U.S. representative and senators where they stand on the three federal bills. One set removes the defense for all officials, one for police only, and one writes it into law.
-
Write your members of Congress and ask them to co-sponsor the Ending Qualified Immunity Act. Use the letter below.