Talk:Qualified immunity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Absolute immunity

Several articles on Wikipedia (e.g. Administrative law judge, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, Hartman v. Moore, List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger Court, McDonald v. Smith, Mitchell v. Forsyth, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Plame affair, Stump v. Sparkman, Susan Webber Wright, William J. Jefferson) mention "absolute immunity" as opposed to qualified immunity. That concept should be treated somewhere, either in a separate article or here (with a redirect from Absolute immunity). 88.234.217.196 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of prosecutorial immunity to qualified immunity is incorrect. Prosecutorial immunity should be redirected to absolute immunity. These issues came up in the Duke Lacrosse Case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.142.5 (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction between Ashcroft v. al-Kidd article and Qualified immunity one

See Talk:Ashcroft v. al-Kidd#Contradiction between Ashcroft v. al-Kidd article and Qualified immunity one about excluding or regarding just violation of costitutional rights. --109.53.210.122 (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Qualified Immunity vs the Stripping Doctrine

As I read about the stripping doctrine, and it seems to be the exact opposite of qualified immunity. They cannot both be in effect at the same time, just the same as it cannot be both AM and PM at the same time in the same time zone. So, how are they?--Wikieditor1988 (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added Contradict-other templates to the articles. --109.53.210.122 (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

IANAL, but my understanding is that the stripping doctrine essentially says that, although you can't sue a sovereign state for violating your rights, you can sue the official who carried out the violation, because any violations they might have carried out were not done on the state's behalf. Qualified immunity does not say you cannot sue such an official, but rather limits when you can win: essentially, you not only have to show that they violated your rights, but that they should have known they were violating your rights. It's a subtle distinction, but it's not a contradiction. —Brent Dax 10:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

They are not contradictory. As said above, the stripping doctrine under Ex Parte Young allows a plaintiff to sue the state official in their individual capacity. Once the official has been sued, qualified immunity can be used as a defense to the claim. Can we remove the contradict tag? 150.108.242.179 (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not entirely correct. Under Sec. 1983 or Bivens, one may sue a government actor in either their individual OR official capacities. For example, often times the officer that did the action will be sued in individual capacity, whereas a police chief or a sheriff-elect will be sued in official capacity. The Stripping doctrine has never been held to bar suits in official capacity; rather it has only been held that you can't sue a state or the United States as a direct party, but rather must name a particular subdivision thereof as the relevant party. That said, qualified immunity doesn't apply to suits filed in official capacity, but only applies to individual capacity. Rather, 1983 and Bivens only allow suits based on "official policy or custom" causing the violation of constitutional rights or rights secured by federal law under Sec. 1983 or Bivens, respectively. See, e.g. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978; and Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985). 108.201.29.108 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Limitations

Obviously District Attorneys can't just randomly prosecute people with heinous charges for absolutely no reason. Obviously that would be extremely damaging, unethical, to the point that it should be criminal. Obviously there must be responsibility taken for such capacity. I am sure there must be clearly defined limitations to Qualified Immunity. What are they? Sassunach (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, when I clicked the "Talk" link from "Proesecutorial Immunity", it sent me here to "Talk: Qualified Immunity". The above is meant to be on a "Talk: Prosecutorial Immunity" page, not here on Qualified Immunity. Sassunach (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That is actually covered under criminal statutes, as opposed to civil statutes. See 18 U.S.C. 242. Neither Qualified Immunity, nor Absolute Immunity, correcctly apply to the area of criminal law. Thus, prosecutors can be criminally prosecuted under federal law for filing a case based off of deliberately falsified information or based upon clear malice. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect citations

When quoting a U.S. Supreme Court decision, third party sources are unacceptable, because they are non-binding and non-authorative as citations of the law. One should cite to the United States Reporter (Formatted as ___U.S.__) , the Supreme Court Reporter (formatted as ___ S.Ct.____ ), or the Lawyers Second Edition of the United States Reporter. (Formatted as ___ L.Ed. 2d. ___ ). Therefore, the citations in this article need to be fixed. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the citations to conform with the standard. Closedspace808 (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Pearson V. Callahan

Pearson v. Callahan Didn't over-rule saucier v. katz; If you carefully read Callahan, we find rather it only stated that the district court need not take the steps in sequential order, if it were more pragmatic to take the steps out of sequence in determining a given case. The notion that Callahan over-ruled katz is a common misconception in the legal community. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I changed the language and added relevant quotes to reflect this. Closedspace808 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Are Federal Circuit Rulings Binding within the Circuit - Or Not

The article states "Circuit courts of appeals typically treat their opinions as clearly establishing the law within that circuit[23]—though the Supreme Court has cast doubt on this theory.[24]" Footnote 24 - City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Sheehan, No. 13-1412, 575 U.S. ___ (2015).

I have to question the "doubt" about Circuit Rulings being binding mentioned in the article. Circuit Court rulings are commonly recognized as binding within the circuit, and it would seem a major change if they were not.

First, is there a page number that could be referenced from the ruling? It is many, many pages long. I have a hard time finding where in Sheehan SCOTUS "casts doubt" on this theory.

All I could find was the following:

But even if “a controlling circuit precedent could constitute clearly established federal law in these circumstances,” Carroll v. Carman, 574 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (per curiam) (slip op., at 4), it does not do so here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:4301:217C:1195:E34A:36A0:609D (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Legalese

Needs translation from legalese. --Kerowyn 02:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Courts do not "enact" rulings. Legislatures enact laws. My understanding is that the courts simply created this immunity out of whole cloth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:4301:217C:1195:E34A:36A0:609D (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raneil13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acharajr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Self Invalidating: "Except in cases of established law"

The Amendment Laws in Bill of Rights, literally numbered 1 through 10 (meaning first 10 Constitutional Amendment Laws of the United States, established in 1791) framed as the Bill of Rights are the most established laws in the US, attached to the "Supreme Law of the Land" (U.S. Constitution). SCOTUS (1967) is recorded giving a big speech about how it applied... except in cases of "established law". There are no laws more "established" than Constitutional Rights, also known as civil rights. Yet that is exactly why the doctrine exists... to violate civil rights... proof SCOTUS of 1961 are "plainly incompetent". Qualified Immunity doctrine created by the "plainly incompetent" and self invaliding.

76.135.14.59 (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song