The Supreme Court refused on Monday to take up qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that often serves as a shield for police officers and other public officials accused of misconduct.
This decision is troubling for several reasons, but one concern raised by Justice Clarence Thomas is worth noting: By refusing to hear a case on qualified immunity, Thomas writes in his dissent, the court is asserting its own interpretation of the law rather than adhering to its original meaning.
Qualified immunity became a “one-size-fits-all, subjective immunity based on good faith,” Thomas writes, for no reason other than because the courts were concerned about “litigation costs and efficiency.” If anyone could take a government employee, including a police officer, to court, then the costs could become overwhelming, and the system could become bogged down.
These are real concerns, as Thomas acknowledges. But qualified immunity has taken on a life of its own in recent years, granting police officers and other government employees the presumption of innocence but denying that same presumption to citizens affected by their actions. Surely, “an officer who acts unconstitutionally” should be held accountable in the same way that any private citizen, business, or company would, Thomas writes.
Thomas is, as often, correct. There is no historical basis for qualified immunity. And given recent events, it’s obvious the doctrine needs to be reformed, which makes the court’s decision on Monday not to consider the question even more disappointing.
