I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7085 

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 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2020 

Mr. AMASH (for himself, Ms. PRESSLEY, Ms. OMAR, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. 

GARCI ́A of Illinois, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. PINGREE, 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. MEEKS, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Ms. 

NORTON, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was 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: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7085 IH

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

2 Klan Act to combat rampant violations of civil and 

3 constitutionally secured rights across the Nation, 

4 particularly in the post-Civil War South. 

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

6 codified at section 1983 of title 42, United States 

7 Code, which provides a cause of action for individ8 uals to file lawsuits against State and local officials 

9 who violate their legal and constitutionally secured 

10 rights. 

11 (3) Section 1983 has never included a defense 

12 or immunity for government officials who act in 

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

14 a defense or immunity based on whether the right 

15 was ‘‘clearly established’’ at the time of the viola16 tion. 

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

18 the 1960s, government actors were not afforded 

19 qualified immunity for violating rights. 

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

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

22 actors had a good faith defense for making arrests 

23 under unconstitutional statutes based on a common 

24 law defense for the tort of false arrest. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7085 IH

1 (6) The Court later extended this beyond false 

2 arrests, turning it into a general good faith defense 

3 for government officials. 

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

5 800 (1982), the Court found the subjective search 

6 for good faith in the government actor unnecessary, 

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

8 standard that requires that the right be ‘‘clearly es9 tablished’’ at the time of the violation for the de10 fendant to be liable. 

11 (8) This doctrine of qualified immunity has se12 verely limited the ability of many plaintiffs to re13 cover damages under section 1983 when their rights 

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

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

16 been frustrated, and Americans’ rights secured by 

17 the Constitution have not been appropriately pro18 tected. 

19 SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS. 

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

21 the erroneous interpretation of section 1983 which pro22 vides for qualified immunity, and reiterate the standard 

23 found on the face of the statute, which does not limit li24 ability on the basis of the defendant’s good faith beliefs 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 7085 IH

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

2 at the time of the violation. 

3 SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. 

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

5 1983) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘It 

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

7 under this section that the defendant was acting in good 

8 faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or other9 wise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when 

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

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

12 Constitution or laws were not clearly established at the 

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

14 state of the law was otherwise such that the defendant 

15 could not reasonably have been expected to know whether 

16 his or her conduct was lawful.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS