||This article appears to contradict the article Sovereign immunity in the United States#Suits filed against state officials under the "stripping doctrine". (June 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Qualified immunity, when applicable, shields government officials from liability, unless their actions are found to violate an individual's federal constitutional rights. This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate "clearly established law". The defense of qualified immunity was created by the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing a court's inquiry into a defendant's subjective state of mind with an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the contested action. A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice", but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his or her actions violated clearly established law.
As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
In 2001, the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz established a rigid order in which courts must decide the merits of a defendant's qualified immunity defense. First, the court determines whether the complaint states a constitutional violation. If so, the next sequential step is to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the official's conduct. The Court subsequently overruled Saucier in Pearson v. Callahan, holding that the two-step procedure was no longer mandatory.
|This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|