4 ms·
It's more complicated at the federal level, but in this case the bill abolishes qualified immunity when suing New Mexico officials in New Mexico courts for viol
by wahern 6y ago
It's more complicated at the federal level, but in this case the bill abolishes qualified immunity when suing New Mexico officials in New Mexico courts for violations of New Mexico law. Presumably New Mexico courts adopted the federal concept of qualified immunity at some point. See https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/21%20Regular/bills/house/HB0004.pdf https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/21%20Regular/bills/house/HB...
You usually sue state officials under Federal law when a state doesn't permit residents to sue them at all, or if the claims, defenses, or remedies are too strict. A Civil War Reconstruction-era Federal statue, the Ku Klux Klan Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_Act), enacted under the newly granted powers of the 14th Amendment, permitted people to sue state officials whence previously they were barred by state sovereign immunity. The act was rarely used for the first 80 or so years; why I don't know. Qualified immunity is something SCOTUS cooked up after a rapid increase in such law suits caused some judicial anxiety about the potential chilling effect of supposedly frivolous law suits. To be fair, this was at a time when a rather liberal Supreme Court was effectively inventing new rights, like so-called Miranda rights, right to appointed counsel when indigent, etc, the scope of which were then unclear.
- arcticbull 6y agoI can't imagine anyone arguing against Miranda rights, the right to appointed council when you can't afford one, etc. Can you think of a single good reason these shouldn't exist? Whichever rather liberal supreme court that was let's get them back ASAP!
- wahern 6y agoI think they make sense, but they're definitely not explicitly or even implicitly granted in the U.S. constitution, and the various legal theories (e.g. substantive due process) behind the court's power to recognize them are still vilified by conservative jurists and pundits. Miranda Rights had historical precedence in England, but IIRC mostly after America forked. The right to counsel mentioned in the U.S. Bill of Rights only meant you had a right to be represented by your own attorney, presuming you had the means, not that the state or court had to provide one.
- ghayes 6y agoMany Miranda rights are _expressly_ granted by the Constitution. For example, the right to remain silent is clearly delineated in the Fifth Amendment [0], without the need for substantive due process. To the point you mentioned, from the Sixth Amendement: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." You can argue over how that counsel should be appointed, but I would categorically disagree with the interpretation that it only refers to you hiring your own attorney. [0] "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
- mardifoufs 6y agoI think he meant to say that the constitution doesn't say anything about having a right to be notified about those rights when you are arrested. What could be understood to be "Miranda" rights have a very clear constitutional basis and were not established by the supreme Court, as you said... but I think the term refers more to the Miranda warning that the police has to give to suspects in custody.
- joosters 6y agoIsn't it more accurately called 'Miranda warning'? The point is, there are no new rights being granted, the notification is merely informing someone of their existing rights. The fifth amendment was ratified back in 1791.
- wahern 6y agoFair point. I meant right to a Miranda warning. Though the Warren court also firmed up and expanded some of the underlying rights.