[SeeSharp]

Well on the surface the act does seem to violate the sovereign immunity doctrine. SCOTUS was evidently trying to split the difference.

[from occupied ga]

This is why cops can get away with murder and frequently do.

[Tom D.]

According to the article, the doctrine of qualified immunity expanded in the 1960s. Remember that this was a time when new “constitutional rights” were popping up everywhere. Should local officials been held civilly liable for not informing Mr. Miranda of his Miranda rights before the Supreme Court announced that there was such a thing? Should Mr. Gideon have been awarded damages against the local prosecutor or judge because he was not appointed a lawyer free of charge before the Supreme Court determined that there was such a right?

I am generally in accord with this article and am not a big fan of qualified immunity, but there needs to be some recognition of the possibility of people being financially ruined for violating rights before those rights were created or recognized.

[zeugma]

Qualified Immunity is the scam that makes some animals more equal than others.

[Mariner]

I have been an advocate on this forum for years for the elimination of qualified immunity, by statute.

And by nullification as a jury member. Don’t recognize the defense.

There are many who disagree. They believe the police should be protected unless they intend to violate the law.

[Thud]

IMO the qualified immunity doctrine violates Article IV, section 4, of the Constitution:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government ...