zlacker

>>mnm1+(OP)
Just so we know what we're talking about, here is a description of the 13 Qualified Immunity cases that may get to the Supreme Court soon.

https://www.cato.org/blog/may-15th-supreme-court-will-finall...

Sample:

Jessop v. City of Fresno. In this case, the Ninth Circuit granted immunity to police officers who stole over $225,000 in cash and rare coins in the course of executing a search warrant. The court noted that while “the theft [of] personal property by police officers sworn to uphold the law” may be “morally wrong,” the officers could not be sued for the theft because the Ninth Circuit had never issued a decision specifically involving the question of “whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant, and seized pursuant to that warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment.”

>>Burnin+2v
If Congress is considering legislation to change QI then the Supreme Court has little reason to take up these cases. SCOTUS should stay silent when the legislative branch is at work to correct something that was a judicial creation or when it looks like Congress intends to legislate in an issue.

Edit: I will just reply to all of the comments downthread at once because they all seem to urge the same thing. SCOTUS has no incentive to act when the legislative branch is doing something that could easily overturn or not align with their decision, which would render their decision moot. A law that Congress passes overrules any and all SCOTUS precedent on the issue because Congress "legislates against the backdrop of the common law." Further, Congress has the ability to move much faster than SCOTUS: a bill could be passed on less than a month in Congress while it will take at least a year for SCOTUS to reach a decision.

>>abduhl+5w
> If Congress is considering legislation to change QI then the Supreme Court has little reason to take up these cases

No, because the current state of the law still matters. In fact, it might matter even more if there are legislative proposals pending.

>>dragon+ey
I don't disagree and, to be clear, I am against qualified immunity as it currently exists. But, my point is that SCOTUS has little reason to take these cases and risk being overruled by Congress. It's one thing for Congress to roll back 5+ year old decisions where the Court still had Scalia and Kennedy (or others) sitting, it would be another for Congress to roll back a present-day decision issued by the current makeup. The Court would lose face, and I doubt Roberts or the Justices are interested in an outcome where they would so quickly have their hand slapped by Congress.

>>abduhl+3E
> But, my point is that SCOTUS has little reason to take these cases and risk being overruled by Congress.

Well, it's got one big reason: to clarify the basis of the doctrine, particularly, whether (and, if so, to what extent) QI for discretionary acts not covered by absolute immunity is, as IIRC absolute immunity itself is held to be, of Constitutional character and thus not subject to legislative nullification.