Published July 6, 2020 | Version v1
Dataset Open

Data from: How qualified immunity fails

Authors/Creators

  • 1. Yale University

Description

This Article reports the findings of the largest and most comprehensive study to date of the role qualified immunity plays in constitutional litigation. Qualified immunity shields government officials from constitutional claims for money damages so long as the officials did not violate clearly established law. The Supreme Court has described the doctrine as incredibly strong—protecting "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Legal scholars and commentators describe qualified immunity in equally stark terms, often criticizing the doctrine for closing the courthouse doors to plaintiffs whose rights have been violated. The Court has repeatedly explained that qualified immunity must be as powerful as it is to protect government officials from burdens associated with participating in discovery and trial. Yet the Supreme Court has relied on no empirical evidence to support its assertion that qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from these assumed burdens.

This Article is the first to test this foundational assumption underlying the Supreme Court's qualified immunity decisions. I reviewed the dockets of 1,183 Section 1983 cases filed against state and local law enforcement defendants in five federal court districts over a two-year period and measured the frequency with which qualified immunity motions were brought by defendants, granted by courts, and dispositive before discovery and trial. I found that qualified immunity rarely served its intended role as a shield from discovery and trial in these cases. Across the five districts in my study, just thirty-eight (3.9%) of the 979 cases in which qualified immunity could be raised were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. And when one considers all the Section 1983 cases brought against law enforcement defendants—each of which could expose law enforcement officials to burdens associated with discovery and trial—just seven (0.6%) were dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage and thirty-one (2.6%) were dismissed at summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. My findings enrich our understanding of qualified immunity's role in constitutional litigation, belie expectations about the policy interests served by qualified immunity, and show that qualified immunity doctrine should be modified to reflect its actual role in constitutional litigation.

Files

Files (370.6 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:347bbae2e0c5b70470d9e71a77ec4fac
89.3 kB Download
md5:d5dfef118de94249f0a08d4fa9796863
33.8 kB Download
md5:3f24900bc5c0d9970e3b69778abf7d47
71.2 kB Download
md5:2304acd8f43a5e957764fd1d3f196998
19.4 kB Download
md5:da714364116eb153f02a549aedb17a40
41.7 kB Download
md5:620a671f64988941278dd887591ab728
22.0 kB Download
md5:66eb4d8028833113da3254da3f6ada5b
33.7 kB Download
md5:f158c525f0934b0f6f403c116bf44a0a
13.2 kB Download
md5:0f2e3eb71a1f8fa72cffa38f9a5cf778
34.2 kB Download
md5:310104da592ade71dd33706f9a2d8dbd
12.0 kB Download

Additional details