The killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer on Monday has reignited calls for national reforms to policing, including ending qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that civil liberties groups say has become a shield for grotesque police misconduct.
While some of the actions that criminal justice advocates are calling for-such as national use-of-force standards and limiting the power of police unions-would require large amounts of political capital, the issue of qualified immunity happens to be before the Supreme Court right now.
The Court considered 13 different petitions for cases involving qualified immunity at a conference hearing yesterday.
Qualified immunity, created by the Supreme Court in the 1970s, shields police and other government officials from liability in civil rights lawsuits when the illegality of their actions was not "Clearly established" at the time of the offense.
"We need legislation that specifically goes after qualified immunity and the additional protections offered to law enforcement officersWe want to make sure that the laws from a federal level, number one, that these cases are no longer handled solely locally, but that the federal government will be asked to come in in each of these cases or these states will be denied federal funds."
"Such a one-sided approach to qualified immunity transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers, gutting the deterrent effect of the Fourth Amendment," Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.
Ending qualified immunity wouldn't end police brutality, but it would put departments and individual officers on notice that they can no longer brazenly harm and kill people without consequences.
While some of the actions that criminal justice advocates are calling for-such as national use-of-force standards and limiting the power of police unions-would require large amounts of political capital, the issue of qualified immunity happens to be before the Supreme Court right now.
The Court considered 13 different petitions for cases involving qualified immunity at a conference hearing yesterday.
Qualified immunity, created by the Supreme Court in the 1970s, shields police and other government officials from liability in civil rights lawsuits when the illegality of their actions was not "Clearly established" at the time of the offense.
"We need legislation that specifically goes after qualified immunity and the additional protections offered to law enforcement officersWe want to make sure that the laws from a federal level, number one, that these cases are no longer handled solely locally, but that the federal government will be asked to come in in each of these cases or these states will be denied federal funds."
"Such a one-sided approach to qualified immunity transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers, gutting the deterrent effect of the Fourth Amendment," Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.
Ending qualified immunity wouldn't end police brutality, but it would put departments and individual officers on notice that they can no longer brazenly harm and kill people without consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment