Judge Carlton Reeves has a new opinion out condemning qualified immunity as unlawful and egregiously unjust. He calls the doctrine a "perpetuation of racial inequality" and "an extra-constitutional affront to other cherished values of our democracy." s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24...
In this case, Reeves denies qualified immunity to a detective who falsely accused Desmond Green of murder on the basis of an implausible tip and manipulated testimony, leading to Green's 22-month incarceration in a cell infested with rodents and snakes. s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24...
Reeves includes a long, rather scathing section criticizing Dobbs, too. He argues that qualified immunity stands on far weaker legal footing than Roe v. Wade, and opines that it would be odd for SCOTUS to stand by QI while jettisoning Roe so cavalierly. s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24...
I was today years old when I learned that QI was created to affirm/support Jim crow oppression and as a cudgel to beat back the ku klux klan act. Which when framed that way would be easy to overturn if both parties weren’t so insanely deferential to cops.
Will this have any practical impact Mark? Could it? QI seems primarily to let abusive cops escape accountability. I'd love to think this opinion could change that.
Qualified immunity going away would be huge. But there's zero change this court agrees, as their owners are going to need it if they get to try and institute Project 2025.
I agree with the judge here that QI has no basis in law, but I thought that only SCOTUS can reverse this sort of binding precedent. Lower-level judges are obliged to follow even blatantly wrong precedents.
I love that opinion! I'm so excited to see someone besides me spreading the word. SO important!!! I don't understand why Jamison v McClendon isn't being discussed in a "what do we do about this" context everywhere. Been trying to get ppl to read it for several years now.
