Do We Need Qualified Immunity?

Qualified immunity is perhaps the nation’s most controversial legal doctrine. Proponents say qualified immunity is necessary to give government officials—especially police—breathing room to act in split-second situations without fear of lawsuits. By requiring that a right be “clearly established” before an official can be sued for violating it, the doctrine is supposed to ensure officials have notice of what conduct to avoid before they put a foot wrong. Meanwhile, critics argue that qualified immunity makes it too difficult for victims of government abuse to pursue justice and too often protects officials who have egregiously violated the Constitution, all while failing to put officials on notice. And now new Institute for Justice research finds that the doctrine shields a wide array of government officials and conduct, including premeditated First Amendment retaliation. Join us as we considered these two perspectives on qualified immunity and sought an answer to the question, “Do we need qualified immunity?”

Featuring:

Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School

Michael Perloff, Interim Legal Director, ACLU

Moderator: Robert McNamara, Deputy Litigation Director, Institute for Justice
* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.