Qualified Immunity and Federalism (original) (raw)
2020, Georgetown Law Journal
Qualified immunity is increasingly controversial. But the debate about it is also surprisingly incomplete. Both qualified immunity’s critics and defenders have for too long overlooked the doctrine’s federalism dimensions. Yet federalism is at the core of qualified immunity in at least three respects. First, many of the reasons the U.S. Supreme Court has proffered for qualified immunity best sound in protecting the States’ sovereign interests in recruiting competent officers and providing incentives for those officers to faithfully enforce State law. Second, the States have embraced indemnification policies premised on the existence of federal qualified immunity. Third, working against the backdrop of federal qualified immunity, state and local governments are engaged in robust policy experimentation about the optimal balance between deterrence and over-deterrence in their state-law liability schemes, thus exhibiting the “laboratories of democracy” benefits of federalism. Drawing on findings from the most comprehensive review of state immunity and indemnification laws to date, this Article argues that these overlooked federalism dimensions have important implications for the future of qualified immunity. The observation, for instance, that the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity cases are grounded in protecting state sovereignty and have generated substantial reliance should matter for statutory interpretation and stare decisis. Similarly, the fact that state and local governments are experimenting about how to best use state law to achieve optimal deterrence—effectively eliminating or narrowing federal qualified immunity through state liability and narrower state immunities—further supports the notion that reform should be done legislatively, not judicially. Qualified immunity’s federalism dimensions further counsel that calls for the Supreme Court to revisit qualified immunity should be redirected to Congress and state legislatures.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Eleventh Amendment Federalism and State Sovereign Immunity Cases: Direct Effect on Section 1983
Touro L. Rev., 1999
; see also U.S. CONST. amend. XI. The Eleventh Amendment provides: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. Id 3 Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 120 S.Ct. 631 (2000) In Kimel, the Court held that "in the ADEA, Congress did not validly abrogate the States' sovereign immunity to suits by private individuals. Id. at 650. 4 See, e.g., Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)(holding that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act imposed unconstitutional obligations on state officials); U.S. CONST. amend. X. This section provides: "The powers not
Qualified Immunity's 51 Imperfect Solutions
Duke Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2022
Qualified immunity has no perfect solution. On one hand, qualified immunity can prevent individuals whose civil rights have been violated from receiving monetary compensation—obviously, a bad outcome. On the other hand, without qualified immunity, government officials who fear liability may hold back from protecting the public—another bad outcome. Qualified immunity seeks to strike a balance between those bad outcomes: Plaintiffs can recover damages only if a government official violated clearly established law. Some individuals thus will have their rights violated but receive no compensation, while other individuals may be harmed because the government does not come to their aid. Qualified immunity’s goal, however, should be to produce an outcome that is best for the public overall. Whether qualified immunity strikes the right balance is a topic of intense debate. This debate intensified following the killing of George Floyd and subsequent public protests in the summer of 2020. Many scholars, judges, and policymakers have since urged a rebalancing. Some even call for qualified immunity to be eliminated altogether. Others counter, however, that reforming qualified immunity will do more harm than good. In our contribution to this symposium on the future of qualified immunity, we offer a partial path forward. Regardless of whether qualified immunity is reformed at the federal level, states have acted and can further act as laboratories of democracy to experiment with different balances. To illustrate the benefits of this approach, we identify reforms to qualified immunity that have been proposed at the federal level to demonstrate how they could be applied at the state level. We also expand the conversation by identifying other potential civil-rights litigation reforms that could be implemented in the states, including changes related to (i) pleading standards; (ii) anti-stagnation rules; and (iii) availability of appellate review. Although state-led reform is not a panacea, 51 imperfect solutions may be better than one imperfect solution.
Awakening the People’s Giant: Sovereign Immunity and the Constitution’s Republican Commitment
2011
This Article explores the relationship between two constitutional doctrines that have faced withering criticisms. The first is the scant jurisprudence emanating from the Guarantee Clause, a provision that requires the United States to ensure republican forms of government in every state. John Hart Ely and Richard Posner, among others, have observed that the Clause has been interpreted in ways that demote it to a dormant aspiration, hibernating in a dusty corner of the Constitution where courts dare not enter. The second is sovereign immunity, which protects states from most federal lawsuits. Scholars have labeled sovereign immunity's application as unprincipled and "embarrassing," primarily because this jurisprudence has purportedly outpaced the language of the Constitution. Taken seriously, however, the Guarantee Clause could reaffirm and reform the troubled doctrine of sovereign immunity. Reaffirm, because the Clause has the ability to pillar important aspects of sovereign immunity with a more plausible textual basis than any currently cited by the Supreme Court. The text and history of the Guarantee Clause illustrate that it protects representative democracy, a form of government that stands as one means of ensuring stability among the states. Protecting representative government and ensuring states' stability are among the very aims that
STATE IMMUNITY, BETWEEN PAST AND FUTURE
Acces to Justice in Eastern Europe, 2023
Background: State immunity, a subject rarely encountered in the East, is being brought to light more and more often lately. In the process of being detached from customary law, it has been subject to several attempts at codification. These attempts appear to have been overtaken by developments in doctrine, which demonstrates the existence of potentially delicate situations of public international law. In this context, we recall the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property
The doctrine and types of jurisdictional immunity of state and its property 1
Legal Research Institute. Kookmin University, Seoul, Korea., 2016
The doctrine of jurisdictional immunity of state and its property A. Absolute theory of jurisdictional immunity of state and its property B. Restrictive theory of jurisdictional immunity of state and its property III. Types of jurisdictional immunity of state and its property A. Immunity from pre-judgment enforcement of a claim B. Court's immunity (immunity from jurisdiction of foreign courts) C. Immunity from enforcing court judgments D. Immunity of state property IV. Conclusion Bibliography
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.