4 ms·

Any good analysis on this? My initial reaction is to be aghast (but then I can't believe QI is actually law) I remember reading something along the lines of "i

Any good analysis on this? My initial reaction is to be aghast (but then I can't believe QI is actually law) I remember reading something along the lines of "it's because SCOTUS believes the legislature needs to act" rather than "it's because the SCOTUS thinks Qualified Immunity is fine and dandy" but I'd love to hear some informed opinions.

jimmaswell 6y ago
> "it's because SCOTUS believes the legislature needs to act" The SC made up modern QI out of thin air on their own, so this feels like a cop-out.
- thrill 6y ago
  Every viewpoint some aggrieved group disagrees with gets blamed on the Court "making stuff up out of thin air". The Supreme Court believes it did its job the fist time and interpreted the laws as they are written commensurate with the Constitution, and most importantly if you read between the lines, does not believe the Court as it is made up would arrive at a different conclusion. Changes to such law need to come from the several hundred elected people responsible for such things.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Except in this case QI is 100% invented by the court, and appears to run counter to statutory text as many justices have said in dissenting opinions over the years and has Justice Thomas does again in dissent here in this court order.
    - thrill 6y ago
      No, it is not invented by the Court - it is interpreted by the Court as being within the law as it is written. Lawmakers need to rewrite laws if they don't like how they get interpreted. Lawmakers are the people the the People get to influence.
      - ikiris 6y ago
        Please point out the basis in legislated law for qualified immunity.
- whoopdedo 6y ago
  That the Supreme Court has already stated QI is a thing can be seen as their reason not to argue it again. They're saying they don't see why the court would come to a different conclusion. It's a view that law is deterministic: given a particularly worded legislation and a specific finding of fact, only one conclusion can be arrived at. There can't be multiple interpretations. (A court can strike down a vague law, but if they uphold it then it must not be.) And an interpretation can't change over time or else that would be "legislating from the bench."
  - jimmaswell 6y ago
    You're making it sound impossible or forbidden but the SC has overturned its own precedents over 300 times before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_Sta...
- myself248 6y ago
  > cop-out I see what you did there.
burkaman 6y ago
It seems like there is not much to analyze. The headline is phrased as if the court issued some statement saying "we will not hear cases challenging qualified immunity." In fact, there were some qualified immunity challenges that had petitioned the court to be heard, and they were denied along with many other petitions, with no explanation. There is almost never any explanation when they deny a petition. So there's not really anything new, it's just more newsworthy because of the current societal context. It's the same bad precedent that they've been using for decades, and they're denying these cases with the unstated logic "we already decided this issue and you haven't convinced us we need to revisit it."
- tharne 6y ago
  > It's the same bad precedent that they've been using for decades It's not a bad precedent, it's a precedent interpreting a bad law. It's on congress to write laws. Congress could change this law any time they want. The court can only interpret law, they can't reverse a law just because a majority of people don't like it. If the law hasn't changed since the last time they heard the case, there's no point in them hearing any more cases because there is nothing new to discuss from a legal standpoint. There's an election in November in case anyone's interested.
  - miles 6y ago
    > The court can only interpret law, they can't reverse a law just because a majority of people don't like it. The Supreme Court invented Qualified Immunity[1]. The law before that was very clear[2]: "The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations. It applies when someone acting 'under color of' state-level or local law has deprived a person of rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#History_and_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#History_and... [2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-section-1983-lawsuit-against-the-police.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-section-19...
    - 6y ago
DevX101 6y ago
I have a basic intro at https://endqualifiedimmunity.com https://endqualifiedimmunity.com and link to more detailed articles at the end of the site.
- dsl 6y ago
  First off, I absolutely love the photo of the cops dancing with the protestor. Secondly, you should flesh out your description of what qualified immunity is so people have an understanding of what being for or against it really means. Please feel free to use parts of the explanation I posted here previously: Lets say you want to build a deck. You put together the plans, take them to the planning commission, and they rightfully reject it for being structurally unsound. Qualified immunity is what prevents you from personally suing each member of the planning commission to pressure them in to reversing their decision. Think of it like the legal system throwing an exception, we aren't even going to consider this because your beef is with the city not an individual employee. Police have qualified immunity because otherwise they would face personal lawsuits every time they wrote a rich guy a speeding ticket, or a convicted murderer has nothing better to do but get his law degree in prison. Qualified immunity does not protect civil servants from criminal charges, or when a disinterested party (someone who does not stand to benefit from the case, say the ACLU or NAACP) files suit.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> "it's because SCOTUS believes the legislature needs to act" This is always a cop out because it is the job of the SCOTUS to act as check on legislation, and to act when it doesn't.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  ABSOLUTELY NOT. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to "act when it doesn't". It is not their job to write legislation when Congress can't get their act together.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    That's just, like, your opinion, man.

jimmaswell 6y ago

> "it's because SCOTUS believes the legislature needs to act" The SC made up modern QI out of thin air on their own, so this feels like a cop-out.

thrill 6y ago
Every viewpoint some aggrieved group disagrees with gets blamed on the Court "making stuff up out of thin air". The Supreme Court believes it did its job the fist time and interpreted the laws as they are written commensurate with the Constitution, and most importantly if you read between the lines, does not believe the Court as it is made up would arrive at a different conclusion. Changes to such law need to come from the several hundred elected people responsible for such things.
- syshum 6y ago
  Except in this case QI is 100% invented by the court, and appears to run counter to statutory text as many justices have said in dissenting opinions over the years and has Justice Thomas does again in dissent here in this court order.
  - thrill 6y ago
    No, it is not invented by the Court - it is interpreted by the Court as being within the law as it is written. Lawmakers need to rewrite laws if they don't like how they get interpreted. Lawmakers are the people the the People get to influence.
    - ikiris 6y ago
      Please point out the basis in legislated law for qualified immunity.
whoopdedo 6y ago
That the Supreme Court has already stated QI is a thing can be seen as their reason not to argue it again. They're saying they don't see why the court would come to a different conclusion. It's a view that law is deterministic: given a particularly worded legislation and a specific finding of fact, only one conclusion can be arrived at. There can't be multiple interpretations. (A court can strike down a vague law, but if they uphold it then it must not be.) And an interpretation can't change over time or else that would be "legislating from the bench."
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  You're making it sound impossible or forbidden but the SC has overturned its own precedents over 300 times before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_Sta...
myself248 6y ago
> cop-out I see what you did there.

burkaman 6y ago

It seems like there is not much to analyze. The headline is phrased as if the court issued some statement saying "we will not hear cases challenging qualified immunity." In fact, there were some qualified immunity challenges that had petitioned the court to be heard, and they were denied along with many other petitions, with no explanation. There is almost never any explanation when they deny a petition. So there's not really anything new, it's just more newsworthy because of the current societal context. It's the same bad precedent that they've been using for decades, and they're denying these cases with the unstated logic "we already decided this issue and you haven't convinced us we need to revisit it."

tharne 6y ago
> It's the same bad precedent that they've been using for decades It's not a bad precedent, it's a precedent interpreting a bad law. It's on congress to write laws. Congress could change this law any time they want. The court can only interpret law, they can't reverse a law just because a majority of people don't like it. If the law hasn't changed since the last time they heard the case, there's no point in them hearing any more cases because there is nothing new to discuss from a legal standpoint. There's an election in November in case anyone's interested.
- miles 6y ago
  > The court can only interpret law, they can't reverse a law just because a majority of people don't like it. The Supreme Court invented Qualified Immunity[1]. The law before that was very clear[2]: "The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations. It applies when someone acting 'under color of' state-level or local law has deprived a person of rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#History_and_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#History_and... [2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-section-1983-lawsuit-against-the-police.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-section-19...
  - 6y ago

DevX101 6y ago

I have a basic intro at https://endqualifiedimmunity.com https://endqualifiedimmunity.com and link to more detailed articles at the end of the site.

dsl 6y ago
First off, I absolutely love the photo of the cops dancing with the protestor. Secondly, you should flesh out your description of what qualified immunity is so people have an understanding of what being for or against it really means. Please feel free to use parts of the explanation I posted here previously: Lets say you want to build a deck. You put together the plans, take them to the planning commission, and they rightfully reject it for being structurally unsound. Qualified immunity is what prevents you from personally suing each member of the planning commission to pressure them in to reversing their decision. Think of it like the legal system throwing an exception, we aren't even going to consider this because your beef is with the city not an individual employee. Police have qualified immunity because otherwise they would face personal lawsuits every time they wrote a rich guy a speeding ticket, or a convicted murderer has nothing better to do but get his law degree in prison. Qualified immunity does not protect civil servants from criminal charges, or when a disinterested party (someone who does not stand to benefit from the case, say the ACLU or NAACP) files suit.

heavyset_go 6y ago

> "it's because SCOTUS believes the legislature needs to act" This is always a cop out because it is the job of the SCOTUS to act as check on legislation, and to act when it doesn't.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
ABSOLUTELY NOT. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to "act when it doesn't". It is not their job to write legislation when Congress can't get their act together.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  That's just, like, your opinion, man.