Ending Qualified Immunity Act: Officials Lose 'Good Faith' Defense in Civil Rights Lawsuits

The Ending Qualified Immunity Act is straightforward: it aims to strip away the legal shield known as qualified immunity (QI) from state and local government officials, particularly when they are sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights. If passed, this bill would fundamentally change how civil rights lawsuits—filed under the nearly 150-year-old law known as Section 1983—are handled. Specifically, it eliminates the defenses officials currently use, such as claiming they acted in “good faith” or arguing that the specific right they violated wasn’t “clearly established” in law yet (SEC. 4).

The Legal Loophole That Gets Closed

To understand this bill, you have to know what qualified immunity is and why Congress thinks it’s broken. Back in 1871, Congress passed a law (Section 1983) allowing citizens to sue officials who violate their rights. However, over the decades, Supreme Court rulings created QI, which basically protects officials unless they violated a right that was already clearly defined by a previous court case involving nearly identical facts (SEC. 2). This standard is incredibly high, meaning many legitimate claims fail simply because the exact scenario hasn't been litigated before. This bill is Congress’s attempt to restore the original intent of the 1871 law, stating clearly that the courts misinterpreted the law by adding these protections (SEC. 3).

What It Means for Accountability

For the average person, especially those who have experienced police misconduct or other constitutional violations by local government, this is a massive shift. If a city official—say, a police officer—violates your rights, they can no longer use the defense that they “thought they were being legal” or that the specific right wasn't “clearly established” in a prior case (SEC. 4). This means the focus of the lawsuit shifts back to whether the constitutional right was violated, not whether the official had an obscure legal precedent to cover them. The bill applies this change to all existing and future cases immediately upon enactment, meaning people currently fighting these battles could see the rules change mid-suit.

Who Pays the Price?

While the bill increases accountability, it also shifts the risk. Right now, most liability falls on the government entity (like the city or county), but QI protects the individual official from personal liability unless their actions were truly egregious. By removing QI, the personal liability risk for state and local officials increases significantly (SEC. 4). This might make officials—from police officers making split-second decisions to building inspectors enforcing codes—more cautious about how they exercise their authority, which is the goal of the bill. However, government entities might also face higher litigation costs, as more cases that previously would have been dismissed under QI will now proceed to trial. This is the trade-off: greater individual accountability versus potentially higher operational costs for local governments and increased personal risk for public servants.