I 
119TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 3602 
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 
MAY 23, 2025 
Ms. PRESSLEY (for herself, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. CARSON, Mr. FROST, Ms. 
JAYAPAL, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Ms. LEE of 
Pennsylvania, Ms. NORTON, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Ms. PINGREE, Mrs. 
RAMIREZ, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. TLAIB, and Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia) 
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 sec-
tion 1979, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ending Qualified Im-
munity Act’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:59 Jun 28, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3602.IH
H3602
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
(1) Congress passed the Act of April 20, 1871 
(commonly known as the ‘‘Ku Klux Klan Act’’; 17 
Stat. 13, chapter 22) to enforce the 14th Amend-
ment to the Constitution of the United States and 
combat rampant violations of civil and constitu-
tionally secured rights across the United States, par-
ticularly those of newly freed slaves and other Black 
people in the post-Civil War South. 
(2) Included in that Act was a provision, now 
codified at section 1979 of the Revised Statues (in 
this section referred to as ‘‘section 1983’’), which 
provides a cause of action for individuals to file law-
suits against persons acting under color of law, in-
cluding State and local officials, who violate their 
Federal legal and constitutionally secured rights. 
(3) Under section 1983 a person may be held 
liable for acting under color of State law, even if 
they are not acting in accordance with State law. 
(4) Section 1983 has never included a defense 
or immunity for government officials who act in 
good faith when violating rights, nor has it ever had 
a defense or immunity based on whether the right 
was ‘‘clearly established’’ at the time of the viola-
tion. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:59 Jun 28, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3602.IH
H3602
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
(5) From 1871 through the 1960s, government 
actors were not afforded qualified immunity for vio-
lating rights. 
(6) The Supreme Court of the United States in 
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), found that 
government actors had a good-faith defense for mak-
ing arrests under unconstitutional statutes based on 
a common-law defense for the tort of false arrest. 
(7) The Supreme Court of the United States 
later extended the good-faith defense beyond false 
arrests, turning it into a general good-faith defense 
for government officials. 
(8) Finally, in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 
800 (1982), the Supreme Court of the United States 
found the subjective search for good faith in the gov-
ernment actor unnecessary, and replaced it with an 
‘‘objective reasonableness’’ standard that requires 
that the right be ‘‘clearly established’’ at the time of 
the violation for the defendant to be liable. 
(9) The doctrine of qualified immunity has se-
verely limited the ability of many plaintiffs to re-
cover damages under section 1983 when their rights 
have been violated by State and local officials. 
(10) As a result, the intent of Congress in pass-
ing section 1983 has been frustrated, and the rights 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:59 Jun 28, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3602.IH
H3602
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
secured by the Constitution of the United States 
have not been appropriately protected. 
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 
It is the sense of Congress that Congress must cor-
rect the erroneous interpretation of section 1979 of the 
Revised Statutes that provides for qualified immunity and 
reiterate the standard found on the face of the statute, 
which does not limit liability on the basis of the good-faith 
belief of the defendant or on the basis that the right was 
not ‘‘clearly established’’ at the time of the violation. 
SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. 
Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 
1983) is amended— 
(1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘Every person’’; 
and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(b) It shall not be a defense to any action pending 
on, or filed after, the date of enactment of this subsection 
that, at the time of the deprivation— 
‘‘(1) the defendant was acting in good faith; 
‘‘(2) the defendant believed, reasonably or oth-
erwise, that his or her conduct was lawful; 
‘‘(3) the rights, privileges, or immunities se-
cured by the Constitution and laws were not clearly 
established; or 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:59 Jun 28, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3602.IH
H3602
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
‘‘(4) the state of the law was such that the de-
fendant could not reasonably have been expected to 
know whether his or her conduct was lawful.’’. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:59 Jun 28, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H3602.IH
H3602
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB