zlacker

> 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+(OP)
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+P5
> 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.

>>dragon+(OP)
The primary job of the Supreme Court is not to decide cases. The job of the Supreme Court is to create precedent to help lower courts decide cases.

That they have to decide cases to create said precedent is a side issue.

What this means is that if the law is likely to be changed, then there is little incentive to set a precedent that will have effect on a limited number of pending cases. Whereas if the law is not likely to be changed, the precedent set will affect many future cases and has a greater impact.

Therefore the Supreme Court is properly less interested in cases if it looks like legislation will be passed to address the issue.

>>btilly+dk
> The primary job of the Supreme Court is not to decide cases. The job of the Supreme Court is to create precedent to help lower courts decide cases.

Not really. The primary job of the judiciary, SCOTUS included, is to resolve "cases and controversies." This goes to the heart of judicial restraint, as proscribed in the Constitution, and is commonly referenced in the Court's opinions.

Functionally, SCOTUS ends up writing precedent. But the precedent must flow from the case. Cases mustn't be decided for the purpose of creating precedent.

>>abduhl+P5
I don't see why changing the law is "slapping the hand" of a court telling us what the law used to be.

>>btilly+dk
> The primary job of the Supreme Court is not to decide cases. The job of the Supreme Court is to create precedent to help lower courts decide cases.

No, the job of the Supreme Court is to be the last court of appeal to uphold the US Constitution and laws passed under it. It does that by deciding cases. Setting precedent is a side effect, which can be helpful if it reduces the need for future cases of the same type to have to come to the Supreme Court again, but is not the primary purpose.

>>abduhl+P5
IMO the Court deserves to have its hand slapped for inventing the whole "qualified immunity" doctrine in the first place, instead of just ruling based on the plain language of 42 USC 1983.

>>JumpCr+Vx
Cases aren't for that purpose, but they are chosen by that criteria.

You don't have to take my word for it. The Supreme Court gets about 7000 petitions per year and only listens to 100-120 of them. Per https://www.ushistory.org/gov/9c.asp the criteria that they choose by is:

Generally, the Court considers only cases that have far-reaching implications beyond the two parties involved in the dispute. For example, a case in which a student sues an assistant principal for searching a locker may shape the privacy rights of all students in public schools. The court also tends to hear cases in which two lower courts have reached conflicting decisions. And it tends to look closely at lower court decisions that contradict earlier Supreme Court decisions.

In other words it chooses cases based on the importance of the precedent that is likely to be set or reinforced. The importance of the case to the people involved is less important than that.

>>pdonis+nF
That is the purpose of the Supreme Court. However the Supreme Court listens to less than 2% of cases that come to it. But close to 100% of its decisions set precedent that is binding on lower courts.

The result is that precedent is the most effective tool that the Court has to serve its purpose. And therefore that is the most important thing that they do. And they are extremely highly aware of it.

>>btilly+3L
> the Supreme Court listens to less than 2% of cases that come to it. But close to 100% of its decisions set precedent that is binding on lower courts.

And all 100% of its decisions decide cases. So more of its decisions decide cases than set precedents. So your argument is a non sequitur.