Important Change in Qualified Immunity
Protections for Public Officials
On January 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision affecting the immunity protections provided to public officials facing federal civil rights claims.
Pearson v. Callahan, No. 07-751, 555 U.S. __ (2009).
Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from lawsuits for damages, including punitive damages, when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. This defense is important to public officials because the courts’ interpretation of statutory and constitutional rights is constantly changing.
The Supreme Court’s decision should make it easier for public officials to receive qualified immunity in certain contexts. Previously, qualified immunity was governed by the Court’s decision in Saucier v. Katz, which mandated a two-step sequence for determining whether a public official was entitled to qualified immunity: first, a court had to decide whether the facts as alleged by the plaintiff made out a violation of a statutory or constitutional right; and second, (assuming satisfaction of the first step) the court had to decide whether that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s misconduct.
Pearson abolishes the mandatory nature of Saucier’s two-step process. Under Pearson, courts are permitted to decide qualified immunity issues based on the second prong (whether the alleged right was clearly established) without deciding whether there actually was a right. This change resolves some of the disadvantages that courts ran into with Saucier. In particular, the Saucier rule wasted the resources of the courts and the parties, increased the risk of bad decision-making, and prevented certain constitutional decisions from being corrected.
The principle benefits of Pearson for public officials are: (1) it should be easier for courts to grant qualified immunity because they will not be required to undertake the sometimes laborious work of determining whether there is a constitutional right at issue in a case; and (2) public officials can now argue the relevance of decisions from other courts outside their own circuits when attempting to show that the law was not clearly established.
The Local Government Defense attorneys at FHMBK are happy to provide copies of this new opinion and are available to discuss this new case with you.
To find out more about these attorneys or more about our firm, please visit our website at
www.fhmbk.com 343032
