zlacker

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+(OP)
> 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.

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

>>abduhl+(OP)
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.