Talk:Qualified immunity

message: === ·       Suggested addition for third paragraph in Bivens and 42 USC § 1983 lawsuits with updated information: ===
Similarly, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, plaintiffs may sue for damages if federal officials violate their constitutional rights. However, not all Constitutional violations give rise to a Bivens cause of action. Thus far the Supreme Court has recognized Bivens claims for violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's equal protection component of due process, and the Eighth Amendment, but the Supreme Court has severely restricted the availability of Bivens claims in recent years. [Cites: Egbert and Hernandez.]
=== ·       Suggested addition to Discretionary function requirement section to improve accuracy: ===
Even ministerial tasks will sometimes involve a small amount of discretion, but this discretion will not necessarily satisfy the requirements of qualified immunity.  Conversely, the discretionary function requirement also restricts the availability of qualified immunity to actions taken “within the scope of an official’s duties.” [Cite: Harlow, at 819 n.34.] Thus, if a government official acts beyond the bounds of his authority, he is not protected by qualified immunity. [Cite: Harlow, at 819 n.34.]
=== ·       Suggested edit for third paragraph in Judicial activism: ===
But William Baude, professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School, states that "there is no such defense, there was no such mistake, and lenity [warning] should not apply. And even if these things were otherwise, the doctrine of qualified immunity would not be the best response." And critics of qualified immunity, including Cardozo Law School Professor Alex Reinert, have recently observed that the original language of Section 1983 provided liability for officials “notwithstanding any ….law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the State to the contrary,” indicating that Congress intended to exclude any common-law defenses to the statute. [Cite Flawed Foundation.]
=== ·       Suggested rewrite for the first paragraph of the Through litigation section to improve its accuracy: ===
Because the Cato Institute does not litigate, including in this area of the law, it is strange that that organization should lead off this section. In addition, the way it is written, it gives the false impression that the other organizations listed afterwards followed Cato’s lead on this issue when, in fact, many of them had already been involved in advocacy and scholarship on this issue.
As just one example of how other organization are litigating in the courts of law on this issue, the Institute for Justice has argued one qualified immunity case before the U.S. Supreme Court, has filed numerous cert. petitions to the Supreme Court appealing qualified immunity cases, and we have litigated nearly a dozen other qualified immunity cases in lower courts.
In that context, we suggest swapping out the entire first paragraph with the following:
Numerous public interest organizations litigate in the courts of law to restrict or eliminate qualified immunity. Among them are the Institute for Justice, the MacArthur Justice Center, the ACLU, Rights Behind Bars, and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. These organizations work is often supported by amici from other public interest organizations include the Cato Institute, Law Enforcement Action Partnership and Restore the Fourth. Lyrical42 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few suggested edits to this page 

message: Because the Cato Institute does not litigate, including in this area of the law, it is strange that that organization should lead off this section. In addition, the way it is written, it gives the false impression that the other organizations listed afterwards followed Cato’s lead on this issue when, in fact, many of them had already been involved in advocacy and scholarship on this issue.
As just one example of how other organization are litigating in the courts of law on this issue, the Institute for Justice has argued one qualified immunity case before the U.S. Supreme Court, has filed numerous cert. petitions to the Supreme Court appealing qualified immunity cases, and we have litigated nearly a dozen other qualified immunity cases in lower courts.
In that context, we suggest swapping out the entire first paragraph with the following:
Numerous public interest organizations litigate in the courts of law to restrict or eliminate qualified immunity. Among them are the Institute for Justice, the MacArthur Justice Center, the ACLU, Rights Behind Bars, and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. These organizations work is often supported by amici from other public interest organizations include the Cato Institute, Law Enforcement Action Partnership and Restore the Fourth. Lyrical42 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ·       Suggested rewrite for the first paragraph of the Through litigation section to improve its accuracy: 

message: This article's statements about qualified immunity now show up in google summaries. If a random person googles topics about qualified immunity, one of the top results will come from here. I know this because I am a lawyer who is well versed in qualified immunity, and kept seeing completely wrongheaded notions about the doctrine over and over again in social media circles. Specifically, people googling the topic seem to believe that various states have "passed laws" that purportedly "abolish qualified immunity" in that state. 
Any lawyer in this area can confirm that this is legal gibberish and complete nonsense. A state legislature cannot abolish the doctrine of qualified immunity, which is based on the federal courts' statutory interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, a federal statute. The states that have supposedly "ended" qualified immunity only did so within the context of their local state-law claims. This has absolutely no bearing on Section 1983 or the broader debate about qualified immunity. 
Frankly I think the entire section on "state law" should be deleted as causing misinformation and confusion. But I took the more cautious approach and have instead just edited the section to clarify the distinctions between state law and federal law. I hope this stops polluting google results with the junk that was put in there in the first place. I still vote for deleting the section. Cbreitel (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your edits. I think you struck the correct balance by editing for clarification rather than deleting. The fact that these states did this probably deserves coverage, even if they can only impact state law claims with their actions. If you ever need to get more eyes on a legal article, feel free to make posts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, which looks fairly active. I hope you stick around. Subject matter experts are very helpful. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Forgot to ping  –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misstatements of law about "state law" leading to misinformed google summaries