CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER: Abuse of "Qualified Immunity" By Governmental Servants of the U.S. Constitution

WHAT IS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY?

Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine developed by the Supreme Court in the late 1960s, which shields state actors from liability for their misconduct, even when they break the law. Our primary federal civil rights statute—generally called “Section 1983” after its place in the U.S. code—says that any state actor who violates someone’s constitutional rights “shall be liable” to the party injured. But under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the Court has held that such defendants can’t be sued unless they violated “clearly established law.” In other words, it is entirely possible—and quite common—for courts to hold that government agents did violate someone’s rights, but that the illegality of their conduct wasn’t sufficiently obvious for them to be held liable to the victim of their misconduct.

Ex: Mr. Clayborn calls this legal explanation the chief priest and scribes-hypocrisy clause of the Bible, When Jesus asks the legalistic & intellectual a parable twist. They had no answer. So, the U.S. The Supreme Court is doing the same thing...it cannot delimit the actual constitutional law; aka, you cannot say; Yes without meaning yes; and you cannot say; “No,” without meaning-no.”

LEGALISTIC & INTELLECTUAL ABUSE OF AUTHORITY & POWER IS ALWAYS FOUNDED ON HYPOCRISY

“ And said to him, “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.”  He answered them, “I also will ask you a question; now tell me,  Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?”  And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’  But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us; for they are convinced that John was a prophet.”  So they answered that they did not know whence it was.  And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” Luke 20:2-8

Why is qualified immunity an “unlawful shield”?

In short, qualified immunity is an unjust, unnecessary, and unlawful doctrine that the Supreme Court simply made up out of whole cloth. The special safeguard it grants to government defendants is flatly at odds with the plain language of Section 1983 and unsupported by the relevant legal history. Its main practical effects are to deny justice to victims whose rights are violated and to undermine accountability for public officials—especially in law enforcement.

THE KLU KLUX KLAN ACT; aka,  History of Section 1983 and Qualified Immunity

When was Section 1983 first passed? the original version of the statute that would ultimately become Section 1983 was passed in 1871, as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act. This statute was itself third in a series of “Enforcement Acts” passed by the Reconstruction Congress, intended in large part to secure the constitutional rights of newly freed slaves in the post-Civil War South. The language of the statute was modified in 1874, and ultimately codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For simplicity, this FAQ will refer to all historical versions of this statute as “Section 1983,” even though it hasn’t always been called that.

The Klu Klux Klan Act; aka, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Force Act of 1871, Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, or Third Ku Klux Klan Act, is an Act of the United States Congress which empowered the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to combat the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other white supremacy organizations.

What does Section 1983 actually say?

As federal statutes go, Section 1983 is pretty straightforward, once you parse the nineteenth century legalese. The operative language of the statute says:

“ Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

The phrase “under color of [state law]” just means everyone acting under state authority—in other words, all government agents. So the statute says, in essence, that any state actor who causes the violation of someone’s federally protected rights—either constitutional rights or federal statutory rights—“shall be liable to the party injured.” Note that this language is clear and unequivocal, and doesn’t mention any immunities whatsoever, qualified or otherwise deemed qualified immunity.”

MODERN DAY USES & PURPOSES FOR “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY”

TO MUCH IS GIVEN MUCH IS REQUIRED: 

Donald J. Trump vs. House Judiciary Committee

The Trump Administration has recently questioned the legal validity of numerous investigative demands made by House committees. These objections have been based on various grounds. First, the President and other Administration officials have contended that certain committee demands lack a valid “legislative purpose” and therefore do not fall within Congress’s investigative authority. This objection has been made not only in response to investigations seeking information relating to the President’s personal finances, including his financial records and federal tax returns, but also to challenge a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee for the complete version of Special Counsel Mueller’s report along with underlying evidence and materials. Second, the President has made a more generalized claim that his advisers cannot be made to testify before Congress, even in the face of a committee subpoena. This position, based upon the executive branch’s long standing conception of “Qualified Immunity” and/or all forms of immunity any and all presidential advisers from compelled congressional testimony regarding their official duties. This is not lawful and clearly violates the U.S. Constitution for personal, private and non-governmental gain. 

SHARED POWERS: EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE & JUDICIAL BRANCHES

In Trump v. Deutsche Bank, another federal judge issued a bench ruling rejecting arguments that two House committees lacked a legislative purpose; AND/OR “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” in issuing subpoenas to various financial institutions for financial and account information connected to President Trump, his family members, and others.

Executive Branch “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” from Congressional Testimony 

(Is being raped & perverted by a type of dictator like corrupt regime; and not a functional administration)

The Trump-Pence administration does not just believe in “Qualified Immunity,” but “Absolute Immunity,” which is clearly not constitutionally sound. “The assertion of absolute immunity for presidential advisers derives from the position that, as the head of an independent, co-equal branch, the President cannot be compelled to provide testimony before Congress.” 

ATTITUDE REFLECTS LEADERSHIP...

THE SUPREME COURT ACCIDENTAL RULING AGAINST “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY,” & soundly against “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY is good for future cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals (these courts set public policy); and the U.S. Supreme Court. What will be the federal question?

Example: when President George W. Bush asserted that former White House Counsel Harriet Miers was wholly immune from being compelled to appear and testify before the House Judiciary Committee as part of an investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys. In Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the “asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law.” Moreover, the court characterized the Supreme Court’s previous rejection of absolute immunity for presidential advisers in civil suits for money damages to be “all but conclusive on this question” and to “powerfully suggest” that presidential advisers do not possess absolute immunity in the congressional context.

REMEDY FOR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT 

Congress can respond to “any” executive branch non-compliance with committee subpoenas in a variety of ways. In addition to citing a witness for criminal contempt of Congress, an approach the House Judiciary Committee can use; and has used in the past already. Due to the U.S Attorney General’s failure to comply with the Committee’s subpoena.

LEARN MORE: Cata Institute Documentary titled “UnlawfulShield

Unlawful Shield: Abolish Qualified Immunity.” Website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmoPUWGc1WY

Websites & Works Cited

“Frequently Asked Questions About Qualified Immunity.” Unlawful Shield, www.unlawfulshield.com/frequently-asked-questions-about-qualified-immunity/.

Jr, Dale Conder. “DRI Qualified Immunity Article.” LinkedIn SlideShare, 31 July 2015, www.slideshare.net/DaleConderJr/dri-qualified-immunity-article-51144340.

Sgarlat, Michael J. “Supreme Court Finds That Officers Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Finding Officers Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law.” FEDagent, FEDagent, 3 Feb. 2017, www.fedagent.com/news-articles/supreme-court-finds-that-officers-are-entitled-to-qualified-immunity-finding-officers-did-not-violate-clearly-established-law.

Stern, Mark Joseph. “The Supreme Court Broke Police Accountability. Now It Has the Chance to Fix It.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 27 May 2020, slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/george-floyd-supreme-court-police-qualified-immunity.html.

“Writer's Reference, Ninth Edition (9781319057442): Macmillan Learning.” , 9th Edition | Macmillan Learning for Instructors, www.macmillanlearning.com/college/us/product/Writers-Reference/p/1319057446.