Supreme Court Decision on Qualified Immunity Criticized by Mississippi Judge
A district judge in Mississippi has sharply criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s stance on qualified immunity, suggesting a shift in the legal interpretation of this doctrine. Carlton Reeves, a judge in the Southern District of Mississippi, argued that the qualified immunity doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in 1967, unjustly shields government agents from accountability.
In an opinion published on Monday, Judge Reeves stated that the doctrine prevents individuals wronged by government agents from suing unless the Supreme Court has previously deemed “substantially the same acts to be unconstitutional.” Reeves characterized the doctrine as an “unconstitutional error” and urged the judiciary to rectify this mistake.
The Case of Desmond Green
Reeves cited a 2020 homicide case involving Desmond Green, a Black man falsely accused of capital murder in Jackson, Mississippi. Green was accused by Samuel Jennings of killing Nicholas Robertson. Despite Green’s denials, he was indicted by a grand jury and detained in the Hinds County Detention Center, an “inhumane” facility plagued by poor conditions.
Jennings later recanted his accusation, admitting he was drug-impaired when he implicated Green. After losing nearly two years of his life to wrongful detention, Green sued the detective responsible for his arrest, the city of Jackson, and the operator of the detention center. However, Reeves noted that Green’s pursuit of justice faces another hurdle due to the qualified immunity doctrine.
Legal and Historical Context
Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at the Cato Institute, explained that the qualified immunity doctrine has its roots in federal civil rights law established after the Civil War, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This law, also known as the “Ku Klux Klan Act,” was intended to provide federal remedies for those oppressed by local government officials.
The qualified immunity doctrine emerged from a 1967 Supreme Court case, Pearson v. Ray, which introduced a “good faith” standard. This was further expanded by the 1982 case Harlow v. Fitzgerald to the current “clearly established” standard, requiring plaintiffs to cite nearly identical preexisting cases to overcome qualified immunity.
Neily criticized this interpretation, arguing that it grants officials a “free pass” and dismisses cases unless a factually similar precedent exists. He described qualified immunity as “a very broad law” that creates significant injustice, as highlighted by Judge Reeves’ opinion.
Criticism from the Legal Community
Joanna Schwartz, a UCLA law professor, praised Judge Reeves as a powerful critic of the qualified immunity doctrine. In her blog post, she noted that Reeves’ opinion delves into the historical and policy flaws of the doctrine, and questions the principle of stare decisis in light of recent Supreme Court decisions, such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Schwartz emphasized Reeves’ argument that concerns about overturning settled law are insubstantial, given recent judicial trends. Reeves’ ruling reflects a growing backlash against qualified immunity, advocating for a legal system that holds government agents accountable for their actions.
Conclusion
The critique by Judge Reeves signifies a broader reevaluation of qualified immunity within the legal community. As debates continue over the doctrine’s impact on justice and accountability, this ruling may inspire further challenges and reforms in the interpretation of qualified immunity in the United States.
