What is Qualified Immunity, and How Does it Differ From Sovereign Immunity?
The videos showing Tyre Nichols’s death at the hands of five Memphis police officers shocked the consciences of reasonable people around the world. Naturally, the incident reignited debate over the highly controversial legal doctrines of qualified and sovereign immunity, which we touched on in a previous blog.
At a basic level, both qualified and sovereign immunity make it extremely difficult for anyone to prevail in a lawsuit against the federal government, state government, or anyone acting on behalf of such institutions.
The differences between sovereign and qualified immunity are few. In fact, qualified immunity is a legal doctrine which is actually a direct off-shoot of sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity, as a common law concept, has existed since 1649, before the U.S. separated from Great Britain. It originated as a manifestation of the concept that a king or monarch is above the law.
Since the U.S. achieved independence, courts have affirmed that it applies to federal and state governments (but not municipal governments). The only exceptions are cases in which the government voluntarily waives its immunity to a lawsuit. The federal government did just that in a 1946 law that allows private entities to sue the U.S. in certain circumstances.
What Does Qualified Immunity Mean for Plaintiffs of Lawsuits?
Believe it or not, qualified immunity is regarded as the form of sovereign immunity more friendly to potential plaintiffs. The other form, absolute immunity, is essentially a complete and total bar to lawsuits against governments or government officials. Through years of Supreme Court rulings, however, the bar plaintiffs need to clear in order to receive damages against someone with qualified immunity has been raised to the point where absolute and qualified immunity are nearly identical.
Under current case law, a plaintiff may prevail over qualified immunity and receive damages if a government official (such as a police officer) discharged a discretionary function of his or her job and violated someone’s “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” The latter requirement is usually what prevents plaintiffs from prevailing in court.
A clear violation of statutory or constitutional rights, in the context of qualified immunity, means a court previously ruled that a prior case with similar facts resulted in a violation of another person’s rights. Unfortunately, the two cases must be nearly identical for success in court.
To show just how similar the two cases must be, consider Baxter v. Bracey, a 2018 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
An Illustration of Qualified Immunity
The plaintiff in this case, Mr. Alexander Baxter, alleged that a police officer sicced a canine unit on him while he was sitting down with his hands up. The dog bit Mr. Baxter once in his arm even though, he alleged, he had already surrendered to police. The appeals court ruled that the police officers had qualified immunity.
Initially, a previous case seemed to offer Mr. Baxter a way to defeat the high bar of qualified immunity. In this previous case, a court ruled that a police dog that was sicced on two plaintiffs who “were not fleeing” was a violation of their rights. However, the judges in the sixth circuit ruled that the facts of Baxter did not match the facts of the previous case closely enough.
In other words, Baxter alleging that he was sitting down with his hands up was not enough of a surrender. Thus, Baxter did not have a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right” that was violated.
Is All Hope Lost for Plaintiffs?
Fortunately, the answer is NO. Certain types of torts are allowed to proceed against the federal government and some state governments. Qualified immunity is difficult to overcome, but it does happen.
At any rate, suing the government or a government official is often an uphill challenge. When your rights, wellbeing, and livelihood are on the line, an experienced attorney like William C. Robinson will not shy away from the good fight. If you believe you have experienced harm due to the actions of a public employee, call us today for a free consultation.
