• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

SCOTUS OT 2022 - Qualified Immunity Edition

Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,422
Likes
6,299
Location
My forest stronghold
Feedback: 26 / 0 / 0
Hot off the docket. Josh Blackman calls this a 'strong vehicle' for the court to reconsider qualified immunity. QI has been under attack in some of the lower courts, but to date, SCOTUS has been standing by it. Let's see what happens:

I.B. AND JANE DOE, v. APRIL WOODARD, ET AL.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

Petitioner I.B. was four years old when respondent Woodard, a state caseworker, strip-searched and photographed her at preschool. Woodard had neither a warrant nor parental consent. All she had was a report making unfounded abuse allegations—specifically, of various marks or bruises on I.B. And a narrower, initial search of I.B. (or even looking at areas of I.B.’s body in plain view) readily would have disproven these allegations. Woodard eventually acknowledged that no marks on I.B.’s body were consistent with the unfounded allegations. Woodard then lied about the incident to I.B.’s mother, petitioner Jane Doe, for weeks.

A divided Tenth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal of petitioners’ Fourth Amendment claims on qualified-immunity grounds.

The questions presented are:
  1. Whether the Fourth Amendment requires a caseworker who suspects abuse to obtain a warrant to stripsearch a child, an issue that has produced an acknowledged 4-2 circuit split—and is nearly identical to the issue this Court granted certiorari on but did not resolve in Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 698 (2011).
  2. Even if a warrant is not required in this context, whether clearly established law prohibits conducting warrantless strip searches of children at school where there are no “specific suspicions” of danger or wrongdoing justifying the “categorically extreme intrusiveness of a search down to the body.” Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 376-377 (2009).
  3. Whether this Court should reconsider its qualified immunity jurisprudence to accord with historical commonlaw practice and to eliminate the widespread confusion plaguing current qualified-immunity doctrine.
 
Tough call. In THIS case, it's pretty obvious. Caseworker was a total tool LOOKING for problems. Reminds me of those people who would hold autistic (or something) people's hands to direct them to the keyboard. Facilitators. Turns out all sorts of abuse was alleged by the patients. In tests, it turns out it was 100% the facilitators directing the fingers, not the patients. LOOKING for problems.

BUT. . . . . . . . . it could bog down the courts with a metric butt-ton of lawsuits that are completely unfounded. Look at all that prisoners can do today. I'm not saying they SHOULDN'T, but there needs to be a system in place that can shut down frivolous court actions and save this for those who shouldn't HAVE QI.
 
Would a SCOTUS smack-down likely extend to all absurd QI cases (like so many police abuse cases), or would is it more likely limited to protective services with kids (or some other subset)?
 
Would a SCOTUS smack-down likely extend to all absurd QI cases (like so many police abuse cases), or would is it more likely limited to protective services with kids (or some other subset)?

Based on the SCOTUS cases I’ve read, it seems like they give extremely tailored rulings that ultimately don’t have any broad applications. I’d guess that even if they rule this a violation where qualified immunity doesn’t apply it will have a limited to non existent impact on most cases.

Qualified immunity is one of the biggest, or at least one of the most obvious perversions of justice and the Constitution there is.

Things like the 4th Amendment are suppose to apply SPECIFICALLY to government employees like law enforcement, so giving those people immunity when they violate those rights is assinine.

I don’t have high hopes here.

I mean as it is now, lower courts actually felt strip searching and photographing toddlers and lying about it isn’t something worth holding accountable for.
Never mind the fact guardians of toddlers have had to fight criminal charges for child pornography because they’ve taken photos or videos of their kids taking a bath and stuff.

More examples of how the entire system, from the courts down, are corrupt.
 
If someone, anyone, did what has been admitted to in the OP to one of my kids?....

Qualified Immunity, armed guards, moving out of state, out of the country wouldn’t give them any protection.

Right lol and good luck to the next social worker who comes to take them away
 
Tough call. In THIS case, it's pretty obvious. Caseworker was a total tool LOOKING for problems. Reminds me of those people who would hold autistic (or something) people's hands to direct them to the keyboard. Facilitators. Turns out all sorts of abuse was alleged by the patients. In tests, it turns out it was 100% the facilitators directing the fingers, not the patients. LOOKING for problems.

BUT. . . . . . . . . it could bog down the courts with a metric butt-ton of lawsuits that are completely unfounded. Look at all that prisoners can do today. I'm not saying they SHOULDN'T, but there needs to be a system in place that can shut down frivolous court actions and save this for those who shouldn't HAVE QI.


In college every person I knew that wanted to be a social worker had some pretty f***ed up problems of their own. The most glorious thing I ever saw was my drunk room-mate telling a drunk borderline and bipolar girl who liked not taking her meds but wanted to get her masters and help institutionalized youth that it was "the nut leading the nuthouse".

Holy shit, I thought someone was going to die that night. It was by far the most terrifyingly hysterical thing I've ever seen. But that one case aside my takeaway is the people that gravitate towards these positions do so because its what they know, its admirable that they want to do better than what they experienced, but at the same time there's a lot of baggage being brought to the table.

The nutcase now has her masters.
 
Oh no question. It’s the classic, “I need help, maybe I could learn and then help others” scenario. Problem is, they never get enough help so they are walking wounded dealing with the walking wounded.
 
Based on the SCOTUS cases I’ve read, it seems like they give extremely tailored rulings that ultimately don’t have any broad applications. I’d guess that even if they rule this a violation where qualified immunity doesn’t apply it will have a limited to non existent impact on most cases.

Qualified immunity is one of the biggest, or at least one of the most obvious perversions of justice and the Constitution there is.

Things like the 4th Amendment are suppose to apply SPECIFICALLY to government employees like law enforcement, so giving those people immunity when they violate those rights is assinine.

I don’t have high hopes here.

I mean as it is now, lower courts actually felt strip searching and photographing toddlers and lying about it isn’t something worth holding accountable for.
Never mind the fact guardians of toddlers have had to fight criminal charges for child pornography because they’ve taken photos or videos of their kids taking a bath and stuff.

More examples of how the entire system, from the courts down, are corrupt.

I'm still hanging on to a glimmer of hope though. Maybe at some point when it gets down to the individual people getting personally sued then maybe just maybe some sanity will be restored. The funny thing is I can't believe that I am in the same ballpark as liberals on this issue.
 
Its unintended consequences. I know several people who want term limits for Congress. (Something the Founders didn't even consider - think on that one.). But the unitended consequences include a Congress that is never held accountable long term. One that is run by expediency. Just getting rid of the deadwood with a new law (which sounds strangely very liberal to me) doesn't SOLVE a problem, only a symptom.

Eliminating QI will help in those select cases where government officials overstep their bounds. And it will lead to a plethora of new lawsuits. Ones that will choke the courts and require more people working on all of this. Courts slow down. Costs go up. Just delayed.

Which is worse? I honestly don't know. But there is no panacea. It's not an X or Y decision.

Does it suck that there is little accountability for those who step over those broad dark Constitutional lines? Yes. Do we want to throw away the protections that forbid the Michael Moore's of the world to sue whomever whenever just to clog up the system? Maybe not. No system is perfect. Stuff IS going to fall through the cracks. Making a "new law" won't make us safer.
 
Does it suck that there is little accountability for those who step over those broad dark Constitutional lines? Yes. Do we want to throw away the protections that forbid the Michael Moore's of the world to sue whomever whenever just to clog up the system? Maybe not. No system is perfect. Stuff IS going to fall through the cracks. Making a "new law" won't make us safer.
You're absolutely correct to think about unintended consequences. Whether it's the war on drugs, QI, or anything else, unintended consequences aren't given the consideration they're due. However, to be fair, unintended consequences are all too often unforeseeable.


QI has a legitimate purpose. What was not foreseen was how liberally courts would use this doctrine to give a pass to police and other government actors. I'm optimistic that will be reined in over time. While QI continues to enjoy regular abuse, the courts are pushing back and many respected jurists are joining that fight.

The weekly IJ newsletter is a must read for anyone following this issue. I carve out 20 minutes every Friday afternoon to review it. What's (refreshingly) surprising is the number of times that courts and denying QI.
 
QI's only legitimate purpose is squelching nuisance suits against government agents who act in good faith.

Something they already don't need qualified immunity for. Everyone, not just government actors, can be subjected to frivolous lawsuits, yet we all don't have qualified immunity.

Unfortunately, it's become a shield for bad faith actors who know they have immunity and impunity.

Yep.

It's so absurd. For qualified immunity to NOT apply, you must show that a "clearly established" right was violated. It's not good enough to show that your rights were in fact violated. And for it to be "clearly established", there must be prior case precedent with nearly literally identical facts, "particularized to the facts of the case", which almost never will be the case. Even extremely similar cases do not suffice. And even if they did, there's unlikely to be any case precedent, because those people will also have been granted qualified immunity also, preventing any precedent from being set in most cases. The very existence of QI gives one QI!

And if you somehow overcome the "clearly established" hurtle, you must then show that they knew it was clearly established. Showing gross negligence is not sufficient. You must show it was deliberate. And that can almost never be shown shy of the offender straight up admitting they violated your rights intentionally. And of course that will never happen.

I mean there was a case not so long ago where the cop either admitted to or was recorded saying they were arresting someone in retaliation. They were still granted qualified immunity because you don't have a clearly established right to not be arrested for vindictive reasons!

And if you somehow overcome all that, it only means you can then proceed with a civil suit, which you may or may not win. Criminal charges? Forget about it!
 
In college every person I knew that wanted to be a social worker had some pretty f***ed up problems of their own. The most glorious thing I ever saw was my drunk room-mate telling a drunk borderline and bipolar girl who liked not taking her meds but wanted to get her masters and help institutionalized youth that it was "the nut leading the nuthouse".

Holy shit, I thought someone was going to die that night. It was by far the most terrifyingly hysterical thing I've ever seen. But that one case aside my takeaway is the people that gravitate towards these positions do so because its what they know, its admirable that they want to do better than what they experienced, but at the same time there's a lot of baggage being brought to the table.

The nutcase now has her masters.


Yup. My wife has her masters in a field of psychology. Excepting her, and one other person in her program, they all seemed to be tilting at taking down the person they felt wronged them by proxy.
Come to think of it, my wife, sister, and sister-in-law all have masters and doctorate degrees in fields of psychology but not one of them practices in the field. My take on it is none of them have the inclination to put up with the emotional shitshow because they are not driven by the hope of fixing their own dysfunctional situation.
 
Bet it was unanimous.
8-1 at worst.
Maybe even 7-2.

Clarence Thomas ain't down with those hijinks,
and Sonya Sotomayor thinks that the Thin Blue Line
could stand to be just a leetle thinner.

Wikipedia:
Qualified Immunity: Objections and Criticisms: Ineffectiveness

(Which offhand seems like it should be sub-subtitled "Effectiveness",
because the damned doctrine works all too well at brooming injustice;
but let that go).
 
And yet qualified immunity plays no role in frivolous lawsuits anyways. There is no point here.
QI was supposed to stop suing people who were just doing their job legally. Now it's expanded to block almost all cases, even when they were illegally exceeding the scope of their duties. To the point that it's "not clearly established" that officers on duty stealing from an arrestee is a constitutional violation.

But back to the point: yes, nuisance suits were the intent.
 

“Ho asserts that qualified immunity is an imperative to protecting the public; without it, he implies, violence will proliferate, because officers will be too afraid to use lethal force. In reality, the contrary is true. Time and time again, civil servants—namely police officers—have used qualified immunity to avoid accountability for their outrageous, and oftentimes violent, actions.”
 
Back
Top Bottom