As an historical point, qualified immunity is actually a softening of the harsher and much older doctrine of sovereign immunity (ie, “the king cannot be sued”).

As an historical point, qualified immunity is actually a softening of the harsher and much older doctrine of sovereign immunity (ie, “the king cannot be sued”). Congress relinquished some of the immunity state actors enjoyed, for instances where they violated a person’s constitutional rights. This left open the question of what happens if as-yet unrecognized rights were violated: > The evolution of qualified immunity began in 1871 when Congress adopted 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which makes government employees and officials personally liable for money damages if they violate a person’s federal constitutional rights. State and local police officers may be sued under § 1983. Until the 1960s, few § 1983 lawsuits were successfully brought. In 1967, the Supreme Court recognized qualified immunity as a defense to § 1983 claims. In 1982, the Supreme Court adopted the current test for the doctrine. Qualified immunity is generally available if the law a government official violated isn’t “clearly established.” If qualified immunity applies, money damages aren’t available even if a constitutional violation has occurred. If qualified immunity doesn’t apply, while the government employee or official technically is responsible for money damages, the government entity virtually always pays. So qualified immunity protects states and local governments from having to pay money damages for actions not yet deemed unconstitutional by a court. Source: https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/qualified-immunity https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/qualified-im...