Constitutional Accountability Act Rips Up Immunity Rules: Governments Now Directly Liable for Officer Misconduct

This bill, the Constitutional Accountability Act, is a massive overhaul of how the government—at every level—is held financially responsible when its law enforcement officers violate someone’s constitutional rights. It takes direct aim at decades of Supreme Court precedent by making governments strictly liable for the actions of their officers, regardless of whether the misconduct was part of an official policy or custom.

Essentially, the bill amends the crucial civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. 1983, to expand who can be sued. The definition of “Person” is broadened to explicitly include the United States, States, Territories, and local governments (SEC. 3). Most importantly, it establishes that if a law enforcement officer violates someone’s rights, the government entity that employs or contracts that officer is automatically liable. This is a huge shift, designed to ensure that victims have a clear path to compensation and to force governments to step up their game on training and supervision.

The End of the 'Policy or Custom' Loophole

For nearly 45 years, if you wanted to sue a city or county for a police officer’s misconduct, you had to clear a massive hurdle set by the Supreme Court’s Monell decision. You couldn't just show the officer messed up; you had to prove the violation resulted from an official municipal “policy or custom.” This meant that even in cases of clear misconduct, if the city could argue it was just a “rogue cop” acting outside the rules, the city itself walked away without financial liability.

This Act scraps that requirement entirely (SEC. 3). Under the new rule, if an officer employed by the city violates your rights, the city is liable, full stop—just like a private employer is responsible for the torts of its employees. For someone who has suffered a constitutional violation, this is a game-changer. It means they can sue the entity with the deep pockets (the government) directly, rather than having to rely solely on suing the individual officer, who often has qualified immunity or limited personal assets.

Waving Goodbye to Sovereign Immunity

Perhaps the most significant—and financially risky—provision is the explicit waiver of sovereign immunity for both states and the federal government (SEC. 3). Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that generally shields governments from lawsuits. The bill uses Congress’s authority under the 14th Amendment to declare that states are not immune from suit for claims created by this new liability rule. The federal government also waives its own sovereign immunity.

What does this mean in practice? It means that state governments, which were previously almost entirely shielded from these types of civil rights suits, are now directly exposed. For taxpayers, this is where the rubber meets the road. All levels of government—from your local police department to the state highway patrol to federal agencies—will now face significantly increased financial risk from litigation and judgments. This will likely translate into higher insurance costs, larger legal defense budgets, and potentially massive settlement payouts, which ultimately come out of public funds.

The Accountability Incentive vs. Budget Shock

The stated goal of the Act is to incentivize better behavior. Congress argues that the current system is insufficient to ensure police departments adequately hire, train, and discipline officers (SEC. 2). By imposing strict financial liability, the bill forces governments to treat constitutional compliance as a bottom-line issue. If a city knows it will pay millions for a bad hire or poor training, it has a massive incentive to invest in de-escalation training and better screening.

However, the financial implications are huge. For a small county or municipality, a single large judgment under this new strict liability standard could be financially devastating, potentially leading to budget cuts elsewhere or substantial tax increases. While the accountability is high, so is the potential for budget shock across all levels of government, especially since the bill provides no cap or financial mechanism to manage this newly expanded liability.