---
title: Qualified Immunity Doctrine
description: An overview of the qualified immunity doctrine, a legal defense that shields government officials from civil liability for constitutional violations.
keywords: [qualified immunity, civil rights, section 1983, constitutional law, government liability]
category: law
---

## Introduction to Qualified Immunity

The qualified immunity doctrine is a judicial creation that shields government officials, including law enforcement officers, from civil liability for constitutional violations, provided their conduct did not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.[^1] This doctrine operates as an affirmative defense, placing the burden on the plaintiff to overcome the qualified immunity hurdle before proceeding with a civil rights lawsuit.[^2] The Supreme Court has justified qualified immunity as a means of balancing the need to hold public officials accountable for egregious misconduct with the concern that the threat of personal liability will deter qualified individuals from entering public service.[^3]

## Scope and Application of Qualified Immunity

The qualified immunity defense applies to a wide range of government officials, including federal, state, and local law enforcement officers, as well as other executive branch officials such as social workers, prison guards, and school administrators.[^4] However, the defense does not extend to government officials who perform legislative, judicial, or administrative functions, as these roles are often subject to other checks and balances.[^5] Moreover, qualified immunity is not available as a defense to claims for injunctive or declaratory relief, as the doctrine is concerned solely with the imposition of damages liability.[^6]

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation.[^7] The "clearly established" prong of the test is often the more challenging hurdle, as it requires the plaintiff to identify a prior case with materially similar facts where the courts have found a constitutional violation.[^8] The Supreme Court has emphasized that the right must be defined with a high degree of specificity, rejecting the notion that general principles of constitutional law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes.[^9]

## Burden of Proof and Burdens of Production

The qualified immunity defense is an affirmative defense, meaning the burden of proof rests with the defendant government official to establish their entitlement to immunity.[^10] This burden-shifting framework requires the defendant to first make a prima facie showing that their conduct was within the scope of their discretionary authority.[^11] Once the defendant has made this initial showing, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.[^12]

In meeting their burden, the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact on each element of the qualified immunity analysis.[^13] This may require the plaintiff to identify a prior case with materially similar facts where the courts have found a constitutional violation, or to present expert testimony or other evidence demonstrating that the defendant's conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.[^14] If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.[^15]

## Exceptions and Limitations to Qualified Immunity

While the qualified immunity doctrine provides broad protection for government officials, there are certain exceptions and limitations to its application. For example, the doctrine does not shield officials who violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."[^16] This exception has been interpreted to mean that officials can be held liable for conduct that was "so egregious and outrageous that every reasonable officer would have known it was unconstitutional."[^17]

Additionally, the Supreme Court has recognized a "narrow" exception to qualified immunity in cases involving "obvious" constitutional violations, where the unlawfulness of the defendant's conduct is "beyond debate."[^18] In such cases, the plaintiff need not identify a prior case with materially similar facts to overcome the qualified immunity defense.[^19]

Finally, the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to claims for injunctive or declaratory relief, as the doctrine is concerned solely with the imposition of damages liability.[^20] Plaintiffs seeking prospective relief from ongoing constitutional violations can therefore bypass the qualified immunity hurdle and seek to enjoin the defendant's unlawful conduct.[^21]

## Criticisms and Proposed Reforms

The qualified immunity doctrine has been the subject of significant criticism from legal scholars, civil rights advocates, and even some members of the judiciary. Critics argue that the doctrine has effectively shielded government officials from accountability for even egregious constitutional violations, undermining the deterrent effect of civil rights laws and eroding public trust in the justice system.[^22] There have been calls for the Supreme Court to reconsider or even abolish the doctrine, as well as legislative proposals to limit or modify its application.[^23]

Proponents of qualified immunity, on the other hand, contend that the doctrine is necessary to protect government officials from the threat of personal liability, which they argue would deter qualified individuals from entering public service and impede the effective functioning of government.[^24] They further argue that the doctrine strikes an appropriate balance between the need for accountability and the practical realities of government decision-making.[^25]

As the debate over qualified immunity continues, it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court or Congress will take steps to reform or eliminate the doctrine in the years to come.

[^1]: Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
[^2]: Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).
[^3]: Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377, 389-90 (2012).
[^4]: Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988).
[^5]: Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 508-17 (1978).
[^6]: Pearson, 555 U.S. at 242.
[^7]: Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).
[^8]: Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018).
[^9]: Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198-99 (2004).
[^10]: Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815.
[^11]: Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980).
[^12]: Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231.
[^13]: Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6 (1987).
[^14]: Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002).
[^15]: Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231.
[^16]: Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.
[^17]: Elkins v. District of Columbia, 690 F.3d 554, 562 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
[^18]: Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 199.
[^19]: Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 377 (2009).
[^20]: Pearson, 555 U.S. at 242.
[^21]: Hernandez v. Mesa, 137 S. Ct. 2003, 2007 (2017).
[^22]: Joanna C. Schwartz, The Case Against Qualified Immunity, 93 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1797 (2018).
[^23]: See, e.g., Ending Qualified Immunity Act, H.R. 7085, 116th Cong. (2020).
[^24]: Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1866 (2017).
[^25]: Kisela, 138 S. Ct. at 1152.