II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4142 

To amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity 

in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 1, 2020 

Ms. WARREN (for Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. SANDERS, and Ms. WARREN)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of 

qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ending Qualified Im5 munity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds as follows: 

8 (1) In 1871, Congress passed the Ku Klux 

9 Klan Act to combat rampant violations of civil and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4142 IS

1 constitutionally secured rights across the nation, 

2 particularly in the post-Civil War South. 

3 (2) Included in the act was a provision, now 

4 codified at section 1983 of title 42, United States 

5 Code, which provides a cause of action for individ6 uals to file lawsuits against State and local officials 

7 who violate their legal and constitutionally secured 

8 rights. 

9 (3) Section 1983 has never included a defense 

10 or immunity for government officials who act in 

11 good faith when violating rights, nor has it ever had 

12 a defense or immunity based on whether the right 

13 was ‘‘clearly established’’ at the time of the viola14 tion. 

15 (4) From the law’s beginning in 1871, through 

16 the 1960s, government actors were not afforded 

17 qualified immunity for violating rights. 

18 (5) In 1967, the Supreme Court in Pierson v. 

19 Ray, 386 U.S. 547, suddenly found that government 

20 actors had a good faith defense for making arrests 

21 under unconstitutional statutes based on a common 

22 law defense for the tort of false arrest. 

23 (6) The Court later extended this beyond false 

24 arrests, turning it into a general good faith defense 

25 for government officials. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4142 IS

1 (7) Finally, in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 

2 800 (1982), the Court found the subjective search 

3 for good faith in the government actor unnecessary, 

4 and replaced it with an ‘‘objective reasonableness’’ 

5 standard that requires that the right be ‘‘clearly es6 tablished’’ at the time of the violation for the de7 fendant to be liable. 

8 (8) This doctrine of qualified immunity has se9 verely limited the ability of many plaintiffs to re10 cover damages under section 1983 when their rights 

11 have been violated by State and local officials. As a 

12 result, the intent of Congress in passing the law has 

13 been frustrated, and Americans’ rights secured by 

14 the Constitution have not been appropriately pro15 tected. 

16 SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS. 

17 It is the sense of the Congress that we must correct 

18 the erroneous interpretation of section 1983 which pro19 vides for qualified immunity, and reiterate the standard 

20 found on the face of the statute, which does not limit li21 ability on the basis of the defendant’s good faith beliefs 

22 or on the basis that the right was not ‘‘clearly established’’ 

23 at the time of the violation. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
4 

•S 4142 IS

1 SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. 

2 Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

3 1983) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘It 

4 shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought 

5 under this section that the defendant was acting in good 

6 faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or other7 wise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when 

8 it was committed. Nor shall it be a defense or immunity 

9 that the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

10 Constitution or laws were not clearly established at the 

11 time of their deprivation by the defendant, or that the 

12 state of the law was otherwise such that the defendant 

13 could not reasonably have been expected to know whether 

14 his or her conduct was lawful.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS