New Bill Ends 'Qualified Immunity,' Making It Easier to Sue Officials for Constitutional Violations

The Ending Qualified Immunity Act is straightforward: it aims to remove the legal shield known as qualified immunity for state and local government officials, including police, when they are sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights under Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (often called Section 1983).

What’s Actually Changing?

Right now, if a police officer or other government official violates your rights, the courts often protect them unless the specific right they violated was “clearly established” by prior case law. This has created a high bar for plaintiffs—you essentially have to show that the official violated a right that was spelled out in an almost identical previous case. This bill (SEC. 4) wipes that defense clean. Starting immediately upon enactment, officials being sued can no longer argue that they believed in “good faith” that their actions were legal, nor can they claim immunity because the right they violated wasn’t “clearly established” at the time.

Why This Matters for Accountability

This change restores the ability of citizens to hold officials directly accountable, which Congress argues was the original intent of the 1871 law used to enforce the 14th Amendment (SEC. 2). For the average person, this means if an official uses excessive force or conducts an illegal search, their personal belief that they were following the rules won't automatically shield them from a lawsuit seeking damages. For instance, if an officer’s actions violate your rights in a way the courts haven’t ruled on before—say, a novel use of digital surveillance—the officer can be held liable, whereas under current law, they would likely be protected because the specific right wasn't “clearly established.”

The Real-World Impact on Public Servants

While the bill strengthens the rights of citizens seeking redress, it significantly raises the personal risk profile for state and local officials, from beat cops to town administrators. They lose the strong legal protection that qualified immunity currently provides, meaning they could face more lawsuits and increased personal liability. This could lead to a “chilling effect,” where officials become hesitant to make quick, necessary decisions in high-pressure situations for fear of being sued later. Furthermore, government entities may face increased insurance costs or pressure to fund indemnification for their employees, which ultimately impacts taxpayer budgets. The core tension here is between robust accountability for constitutional violations and ensuring that public servants can perform their duties without undue fear of litigation over every close call.