Civil and Human Rights

Justices Reject Qualified Immunity Reform

…In her taser dissent, Sotomayor wrote that the officers elected to use force knowing that it would directly cause the very outcome they claimed to have sought to avoid. “This court’s precedent establishes that ‘the ‘reasonableness’ of a particular seizure depends not only on when it is made, but also on how it is carried out. Using deadly force that does no more than knowingly effectuate the exact danger to be forestalled is clearly unreasonable under this standard.”

In her dissent in the suicide case, she wrote that the jailers were deliberately indifferent to the risks to which they subjected the suicidal inmate.

[Hogan Lovells partner Cate] Stetson has been in the effort to persuade the justices to reform the qualified immunity doctrine for some time. In the petitions just denied, which had been distributed for the justices’ private conferences more than a dozen times, she received support from other legal groups seeking reform of the doctrine, such as the Constitutional Accountability Center, the libertarian Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice….

For more, visit the National Law Journal at https://www.law.com.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle