Qualified Immunity for Police

The basics

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine created by courts, not written by Congress¹. It shields government officials performing discretionary duties from civil lawsuits unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known¹. It covers police officers and other officials such as teachers and social workers¹.

It usually comes up in lawsuits under a federal law from 1871, now known as Section 1983, which lets people sue state and local officials who violate their constitutional rights¹. The Supreme Court first gave police a good-faith defense in 1967 and set the modern clearly established test in Harlow v. Fitzgerald in 1982¹. Courts ask whether the officer violated a right and whether that right was clearly established at the time¹.

In 2021, the U.S. House passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act by 220 to 212, which would have removed qualified immunity as a defense for local law enforcement officers⁶¹. In January 2025, a group of Republican senators introduced the Qualified Immunity Act of 2025 to write the doctrine into federal law for law enforcement officers¹⁰. Congress has not changed the doctrine either way, and a federal appeals court applied it in a Texas case in September 2025³.

Some states have acted on their own. Colorado, New Mexico, and New York City bar qualified immunity as a defense to claims brought under their own laws, and Connecticut allows a narrower good-faith defense⁴. On April 28, 2025, an executive order directed the U.S. attorney general to create a way to provide legal resources and indemnification to officers who incur costs for actions taken in their official duties⁵.

Key terms

Qualified immunity

A court-made rule shielding officials from civil liability unless they violated clearly established rights a reasonable person would have known¹.

Clearly established law

The requirement that earlier court rulings made it clear enough that every reasonable official would know the conduct was unlawful¹.

Section 1983

The federal law, dating to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, that lets people sue state and local officials for violating their rights¹.

Indemnification

When a government or other party pays the legal costs or damages an officer owes, a step the 2025 executive order directed federal officials to arrange⁵.

In Texas

A Texas case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2025. On April 28, 2016, a Harris County officer on the Sam Houston Tollway stopped Ashtian Barnes for suspected toll violations; as Barnes began to drive away, the officer jumped onto the car's doorsill and fired, killing him²³. Lower courts, applying a Fifth Circuit rule that looked only at the moment of threat, ruled for the officer².

On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected that rule and said courts must look at the totality of the circumstances². The case was about how to judge police force, not qualified immunity itself. On remand, on September 18, 2025, the Fifth Circuit again ruled for the officer, finding no Fourth Amendment violation under the totality of the circumstances and holding that the family had not met its burden to overcome his qualified immunity defense³. Appeals from federal courts in Texas, including this Houston-area case, go to the Fifth Circuit³.

How people see it

The strongest case for each view, in terms its supporters would recognize. We don't pick a side.

Questions to ask a candidate

• Should Congress change qualified immunity for police? If so, how?
• Should Texas create a state-law right to sue officers who violate someone's rights?
• Who should pay when an officer is found liable: the officer, the department, or insurance?
• How would you balance protecting officers who make split-second decisions with accountability for misconduct?