Five years after George Floyd's death, calls to reform qualified immunity mostly fall silent
WASHINGTON — The death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer in May 2020 gave momentum to a cross-ideological effort to reform the legal defense known as "qualified immunity," which can protect cops even when they have violated the Constitution.
Bills were introduced in Congress calling to abolish the defense.
Multiple cases piled up at the Supreme Court urging the justices to intervene.
Much ink was spilled.
And then, nothing happened.
With the fifth anniversary of Floyd's death approaching this weekend, Congress still has not passed any legislation seeking to even reform, let alone abolish, qualified immunity. The Supreme Court has rejected dozens of cases asking it to do the same.
What minor changes have occurred, via court rulings or state legislative actions, have had little practical impact on a nationwide basis.
For Karen Blum, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston and a long-term critic of qualified immunity, the situation is nothing short of depressing.
"After George Floyd, it was the first time I was actually optimistic and very positive that something would be done, no matter how little," she said. "But nothing, I mean nothing, has happened."
The doctrine, first adopted by the Supreme Court in 1967, gives government officials the benefit of the doubt when they violate the Constitution.
When a plaintiff files a federal civil rights claim, the defendant — including police officers facing excessive force claims under the Constitution's 4th Amendment — can get off the hook by arguing that it was not "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation that its actions were unconstitutional. If qualified immunity is granted, the lawsuit is dismissed and the plaintiffs never get a chance to either negotiate a settlement or go to trial.
In 2020, a Reuters investigation found that judges were increasingly granting qualified immunity at the direction of the Supreme Court.
The law enforcement community strongly defends the concept, saying it is needed to give officers acting in good faith the confidence to make split-second decisions, often in extremely dangerous circumstances.
The Fraternal Order of Police, a national group representing law enforcement officers, did not respond to requests for comment.
Egregious cases
Floyd's killing by Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis police officer, triggered an immediate national debate over police violence, especially against Black men.
But there had already been a quiet cross-ideological effort before then to reform qualified immunity, backed by such strange bedfellows as the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute. They had filed briefs at the Supreme Court hoping to persuade the justices to take a new look at the doctrine and consider amending it — or maybe ditching it altogether.
For a few weeks in the summer of 2020, as racial justice protests raged, both the Supreme Court and Congress considered whether to take action.
The court quickly sidestepped the issue, declining in June 2020 to hear a series of cases asking for reconsideration of qualified immunity.
Ten days later, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, including a number of police reform measures on qualified immunity and other issues. But it ran into headwinds in the Republican-controlled Senate and lost momentum.
"Republican intransigence was the real explanation there, and I don't see any reason to think that has changed for the better," said Clark Neily, a lawyer at the Cato Institute.
Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., who was a co-sponsor of the George Floyd legislation, said that there were plans to reintroduce it during the current Congress but that he has "no confidence" it would get any traction with Republicans controlling both chambers.
"We will get to a time in this country where we will pass that legislation," he said.
In the meantime, courts have continued to grant cops and other government officials qualified immunity in cases involving shocking claims:
Police officers assisting a paramedic in Fresno, California, held a man in a prone position until he died, even after he told them he could not breathe.
Police officers in Pineville, North Carolina, fired multiple shots at a man who was complying with their orders to drop a firearm.
Prison officers at a facility in Columbia, South Carolina, failed to intervene when two men murdered four of their fellow inmates.
However, there have been small signs of incremental change.
Some judges have criticized the way qualified immunity has been applied, joining a handful who had done the same before 2020. That approach has seeped into some recent rulings, those following the case law say.
Chris Balch, a lawyer in Georgia who represents police departments in such cases, said the thumb on the scale in favor of officers "has lessened in the last five years," meaning defense lawyers need to be ready to go to trial.
He cited a January 2024 ruling by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that denied qualified immunity to a jail intake officer after a Black inmate who had disclosed he stabbed a white man for racially motivated reasons then murdered his white cellmate.
There was also a glimmer of hope for reform advocates at the Supreme Court, which in November 2020 ruled in favor of a Texas prison inmate who had been held in filthy conditions. The justices overturned a lower court that said qualified immunity protected prison officials.
After reform efforts failed in Congress, there was briefly a concerted effort to enact state-level legislation that would create an alternative way to sue officers under those states' laws, making qualified immunity unavailable as a defense. Although a handful of states enacted such laws, the campaign met with considerable resistance elsewhere.
More recently, President Donald Trump's re-election has in some ways sent the pendulum swinging in the other direction in the national political arena.
When Trump signed a pro-law enforcement executive order last month, he stressed the importance of ensuring officers are not held legally accountable for their actions.
The order says the Trump administration will take action to 'provide legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities' and calls on officials to 'strengthen and expand legal protections' for officers.
Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said Trump's policing plan shows he is "fulfilling his campaign promise to Make America Safe Again." The administration is committed to reversing "failed policies" backed by Democrats, he added.
With that political environment in mind, Blum, the qualified immunity critic, remains pessimistic there will be any major change any time soon.
"Qualified immunity is here to stay," she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Lawmakers seek to limit Trump's war powers after Iran strikes
There are significant concerns in Washington after President Donald Trump launched strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Lawmakers and political factions across the spectrum have expressed apprehension about the potential for a prolonged conflict, or 'forever war' with Iran, drawing parallels to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition to military intervention in Iran has unified diverse groups, including progressives, pro-Trump conservatives, and centrist Democrats. Top administration officials said the US was not seeking to overthrow Iran's government but aimed to counter its nuclear program. Efforts are underway by some members of Congress to limit the president's war powers, with bipartisan calls for congressional authorization for military action.
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump vowed to keep US out of wars. What changed with Iran attack?
It's not clear what exact damage was done in Iran. The White House says U.S. bombers decimated three uranium enrichment facilities. What comes next is also far from certain: additional U.S. strikes, Iran's retaliation, a resumption of diplomacy, even? Is this the start of the collapse of Iran's clerical regime? Is it a historical moment akin to the breakup of the Soviet Union? What's indisputable is that one pull factor for the U.S. is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's long, complicated relationship with recent American presidents. The U.S. bombing of Iran is also the culmination of a process that traces at least as far back to the 1990s when Netanyahu, then a young lawmaker, predicted the Islamic Republic, Israel's sworn enemy, would one day either acquire, or be on the cusp of acquiring, a nuclear weapon and Israel would be forced to act - ideally with U.S. help. "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb," Netanyahu said in 1992. His prediction was later repeated in his 1995 book, "Fighting Terrorism." Netanyahu's constant refrain: bomb Iran Netanyahu is the longest-serving Israeli prime minister in the Jewish state's history. He's occupied the role on and off for more than 17 years. In every one of those years he's sought to convince American presidents to bomb Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for civilian energy purposes only. Netanyahu has appeared at the United Nations with elaborate maps and cartoon-style drawings of bombs. He worked hard to scupper the 2015 nuclear accord between Iran and world powers that Trump exited because he said Iranian officials could not be trusted. In 2002, Netanyahu told a U.S. congressional committee that both Iraq and Iran would soon have a nuclear bomb. A year later the U.S. invaded Iraq. In 2009, he told members of Congress in private that Iran was just a year or two away from producing a nuclear weapon, according to a U.S. State Department cable released by WikiLeaks. Successive American presidents have listened and acted on Netanyahu's Iran warnings, most substantively politically in the form of the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, which was designed to limit Iran's uranium enrichment in return for relief of U.S. economic sanctions on Iran. When Trump, in his first term, exited that agreement it was working in the sense that Iran was not enriching uranium at a level necessary to produce a nuclear weapon, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. Netanyahu's public and private relationships with recent American presidents have been marked by chilly tensions and insults. In 2015, Netanyahu's spokesman apologized to former President Barack Obama. He has also clashed with former Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. Netanyahu has even annoyed Trump, although their relationship trends toward mutual lavish praise. But no American president - until now - has gone along with Netanyahu's war plans for Iran, fearing the U.S. could be dragged into a wider Middle East war. The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan still haunt U.S. presidents. "The president more than anybody is worried about protracted military conflicts and that is not what we are getting ourselves involved in," U.S. Vice President JD Vance said on ABC's "This Week" program on June 22. Vance said the Trump administration is also not trying to force regime change in Iran. Reading Trump's Iran tea leaves Trump may also not be as risk averse to military actions as is sometimes portrayed, including by himself. In his first term, he ordered a missile attack in Syria to punish then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons; a raid to kill ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; and a drone attack that killed Qasem Soleimani, a senior Iranian military commander much beloved in Iran whose death led to Iranian reprisals on U.S. bases in Iraq. Also in the background: The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, and former U.S. officials such as Dan Shapiro, U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration, say Iran's nuclear capabilities have advanced since Trump exited the nuclear deal. "Iran cannot be left with an enrichment capability, able to produce a nuclear weapon at a time of its choosing," Shapiro wrote in a recent blog post. Trump has made various comments for years that reflect that sentiment. The main thrust of his remarks in recent weeks have been to say he won't allow Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program, and Tehran could give it up through negotiation or through what he called "the hard way." After first pushing for a diplomatic solution, Trump's tone changed after Israel on June 13 struck dozens of nuclear and military targets in Iran, killing many of Iran's military elite and senior nuclear scientists. By June 17, the president was threatening Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on social media, calling him an "easy target." See updated maps, satellite images: Iran's nuclear sites before and after Israeli attacks Trump likes a winner. He often says so himself. In the days leading up to the U.S. strike, Israel appeared to be winning. "Congratulations, President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history," Netanyahu said in a statement as he addressed the world on June 22 to update them on the war's latest development. He spoke in English, not Hebrew. In his own address, to the American people, Trump said, "I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we've gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel." Not mentioned: U.S. intelligence agencies assessed earlier this year that they did not think Iran was close to building a nuclear bomb. Contributing: Francesca Chambers, Tom Vanden Brook
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Kilmar Abrego Garcia case: Judge denies detention request
Abrego Garcia was thrust into the national spotlight when the Trump administration mistakenly deported him to El Salvador in March in violation of a court order. Abrego Garcia, a sheet metal worker and father of three who had lived in Maryland for a decade before he was deported, has pleaded not guilty to charges he transported undocumented immigrants for financial gain. Prosecutors had argued that Abrego Garcia is a member of the violent gang MS-13 and could flee or intimidate other witnesses if he is released while awaiting trial. Abrego Garcia denies he is a member of the gang and had contended that the charges don't justify holding him in jail. Abrego Garcia's deportation in March turned him into a key player in the debate over Trump's hardline immigration policy. Government lawyers acknowledged in court records that he had been erroneously deported - an "administrative error" was the official explanation - even though an immigration judge's court order had barred his deportation back to native land. A federal judge in Maryland ordered the administration to facilitate his return. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling, but officials resisted bringing him back until he was indicted in May. The human smuggling charges are tied to a traffic stop in Tennessee in 2022. Police say Abrego Garcia was driving a Chevrolet Suburban with nine other passengers when he was pulled over for speeding on Interstate 40 about 80 miles east of Nashville. Police questioned Abrego Garcia and his passengers but let them go without filing any charges. A federal grand jury in Nashville indicted Abrego Garcia on the human smuggling charges on May 21 while he was still being held in a prison in El Salvador. The indictment alleges that, from 2016 through 2025, Abrego Garcia and other unnamed people conspired to bring undocumented migrants into the United States from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and elsewhere, passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas. Who is Kilmar Abrego Garcia? The answer is found on the streets where he lived and worked Prosecutors say Abrego Garcia's role in the conspiracy was typically transporting people once they were within the United States, typically picking them up in the Houston area. If convicted, Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in prison for each person transported. Prosecutors allege he made more than 100 trips. Following his indictment, the Trump administration flew Abrego Garcia back to the United States to face the charges even though it had insisted for weeks that it had no authority to bring him back. Follow Michael Collins on X @mcollinsNEWS.
