Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity protects government officials, most often police officers, from being sued for money damages in federal civil-rights cases unless their conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right that was "clearly established" when they acted. Courts developed it in the 1960s and refined it in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982).

To overcome it, a plaintiff typically must point to earlier case law with similar facts showing that a reasonable officer would have known the conduct was unlawful. Courts may resolve the question of whether a right was clearly established without deciding whether the conduct was in fact unconstitutional, which critics say stops the law from developing. The doctrine does not bar criminal prosecution or suits for injunctions, and it is distinct from sovereign immunity.

Supporters, including many police groups, say officers need protection from lawsuits over split-second decisions and that the doctrine lets them do their jobs. Critics from the left and some libertarians on the right say it denies victims a remedy and lacks a basis in the text of the civil-rights statute it interprets. Congress has not abolished it, though some states have limited it for state claims. The debate often accompanies calls to defund the police.