zlacker

>>mnm1+(OP)
I'm curious - it's obvious what abuses of qualified immunity are driving this, but the law must have been originally put in place for a reason. Are there any examples where a police officer was shielded from prosecution for something that, if you or I did it would definitely be a crime, but that a reasonable person would say, "yes, this is a good application of qualified immunity"?

>>comman+9m
As I understand it QI is not a law, but something the Supreme Court invented in the 80s.

They are, by complete coincidence, about to possibly take on some QI cases this week.

https://reason.com/2020/05/29/the-supreme-court-has-a-chance...

>>Burnin+ip
Every QI case the Supreme Court has taken in the past few years has only made it stronger. There is no chance that Trump's SCOTUS is going to change their tune.

>>Admira+5s
Um.. Clarence Thomas doesn't like it either. In his opinion on Zigler v Abbasi, Justice Thomas says:

> Because our analysis is no longer grounded in the common-law backdrop against which Congress enacted the 1871 Act, we are no longer engaged in “interpret[ing] the intent of Congress in enacting” the Act. Our qualified immunity precedents instead represent precisely the sort of “freewheeling policy choice[s]” that we have previously disclaimed the power to make. Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U. S. 356, 363 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

>

> … Until we shift the focus of our inquiry to whether immunity existed at common law, we will continue to substitute our own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress. In an appropriate case, we should reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence.