logo
Five years after George Floyd's death, calls to reform qualified immunity mostly fall silent

Five years after George Floyd's death, calls to reform qualified immunity mostly fall silent

Yahoo20-05-2025

WASHINGTON — The death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer in May 2020 gave momentum to a cross-ideological effort to reform the legal defense known as "qualified immunity," which can protect cops even when they have violated the Constitution.
Bills were introduced in Congress calling to abolish the defense.
Multiple cases piled up at the Supreme Court urging the justices to intervene.
Much ink was spilled.
And then, nothing happened.
With the fifth anniversary of Floyd's death approaching this weekend, Congress still has not passed any legislation seeking to even reform, let alone abolish, qualified immunity. The Supreme Court has rejected dozens of cases asking it to do the same.
What minor changes have occurred, via court rulings or state legislative actions, have had little practical impact on a nationwide basis.
For Karen Blum, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston and a long-term critic of qualified immunity, the situation is nothing short of depressing.
"After George Floyd, it was the first time I was actually optimistic and very positive that something would be done, no matter how little," she said. "But nothing, I mean nothing, has happened."
The doctrine, first adopted by the Supreme Court in 1967, gives government officials the benefit of the doubt when they violate the Constitution.
When a plaintiff files a federal civil rights claim, the defendant — including police officers facing excessive force claims under the Constitution's 4th Amendment — can get off the hook by arguing that it was not "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation that its actions were unconstitutional. If qualified immunity is granted, the lawsuit is dismissed and the plaintiffs never get a chance to either negotiate a settlement or go to trial.
In 2020, a Reuters investigation found that judges were increasingly granting qualified immunity at the direction of the Supreme Court.
The law enforcement community strongly defends the concept, saying it is needed to give officers acting in good faith the confidence to make split-second decisions, often in extremely dangerous circumstances.
The Fraternal Order of Police, a national group representing law enforcement officers, did not respond to requests for comment.
Floyd's killing by Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis police officer, triggered an immediate national debate over police violence, especially against Black men.
But there had already been a quiet cross-ideological effort before then to reform qualified immunity, backed by such strange bedfellows as the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute. They had filed briefs at the Supreme Court hoping to persuade the justices to take a new look at the doctrine and consider amending it — or maybe ditching it altogether.
For a few weeks in the summer of 2020, as racial justice protests raged, both the Supreme Court and Congress considered whether to take action.
The court quickly sidestepped the issue, declining in June 2020 to hear a series of cases asking for reconsideration of qualified immunity.
Ten days later, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, including a number of police reform measures on qualified immunity and other issues. But it ran into headwinds in the Republican-controlled Senate and lost momentum.
"Republican intransigence was the real explanation there, and I don't see any reason to think that has changed for the better," said Clark Neily, a lawyer at the Cato Institute.
Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., who was a co-sponsor of the George Floyd legislation, said that there were plans to reintroduce it during the current Congress but that he has "no confidence" it would get any traction with Republicans controlling both chambers.
"We will get to a time in this country where we will pass that legislation," he said.
In the meantime, courts have continued to grant cops and other government officials qualified immunity in cases involving shocking claims:
Police officers assisting a paramedic in Fresno, California, held a man in a prone position until he died, even after he told them he could not breathe.
Police officers in Pineville, North Carolina, fired multiple shots at a man who was complying with their orders to drop a firearm.
Prison officers at a facility in Columbia, South Carolina, failed to intervene when two men murdered four of their fellow inmates.
However, there have been small signs of incremental change.
Some judges have criticized the way qualified immunity has been applied, joining a handful who had done the same before 2020. That approach has seeped into some recent rulings, those following the case law say.
Chris Balch, a lawyer in Georgia who represents police departments in such cases, said the thumb on the scale in favor of officers "has lessened in the last five years," meaning defense lawyers need to be ready to go to trial.
He cited a January 2024 ruling by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that denied qualified immunity to a jail intake officer after a Black inmate who had disclosed he stabbed a white man for racially motivated reasons then murdered his white cellmate.
There was also a glimmer of hope for reform advocates at the Supreme Court, which in November 2020 ruled in favor of a Texas prison inmate who had been held in filthy conditions. The justices overturned a lower court that said qualified immunity protected prison officials.
After reform efforts failed in Congress, there was briefly a concerted effort to enact state-level legislation that would create an alternative way to sue officers under those states' laws, making qualified immunity unavailable as a defense. Although a handful of states enacted such laws, the campaign met with considerable resistance elsewhere.
More recently, President Donald Trump's re-election has in some ways sent the pendulum swinging in the other direction in the national political arena.
When Trump signed a pro-law enforcement executive order last month, he stressed the importance of ensuring officers are not held legally accountable for their actions.
The order says the Trump administration will take action to 'provide legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities' and calls on officials to 'strengthen and expand legal protections' for officers.
Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said Trump's policing plan shows he is "fulfilling his campaign promise to Make America Safe Again." The administration is committed to reversing "failed policies" backed by Democrats, he added.
With that political environment in mind, Blum, the qualified immunity critic, remains pessimistic there will be any major change any time soon.
"Qualified immunity is here to stay," she said.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

DC police officer convicted for Proud Boys leaks sentenced to more than year in prison
DC police officer convicted for Proud Boys leaks sentenced to more than year in prison

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

DC police officer convicted for Proud Boys leaks sentenced to more than year in prison

A District of Columbia police lieutenant convicted of tipping off Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio that he was being investigated, and who later lied about their communication, was sentenced Friday to 18 months in prison. Former Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Lt. Shane Lamond was found guilty last year on one count of obstructing justice and three counts of making false statements to federal law enforcement officials. Federal prosecutors accused him of warning Tarrio, then national chairman of the right-wing extremist group, that D.C. law enforcement had an arrest warrant for him related to the destruction of a Black Lives Matter banner. They also said he lied to law enforcement when pressed on the nature of his relationship with Tarrio, suggesting it was 'one-sided.' Lamond told U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Friday that he 'respectfully disagrees' with her finding of guilt but, 'in retrospect,' agrees he made several errors throughout his communications with Tarrio. He said that he believed that building rapport with Tarrio was part of doing his job but described his efforts as 'sloppy,' lamenting that his conviction had now upended his career and life. 'Frankly, I'm broken at this point,' the former law enforcement officer added. Jackson said the idea Lamond could have done better when communicating with the Proud Boys leader was 'quite the understatement.' His conduct was not consistent with police practices 'unless you twist them until they're unrecognizable,' she said. Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of four years in prison. The government's sentencing memorandum was submitted under Ed Martin, who was President Trump's first pick for U.S. Attorney in D.C. but ultimately moved into another Justice Department post when his Senate confirmation seemed unlikely. Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Ross called Lamond a 'trusted leader' who used his reputation to 'insert himself' into the investigation of Tarrio. 'MPD was able to bring Tarrio to justice not because of the defendant but in spite of the defendant,' she said. At trial, prosecutors said Lamond's communications with Tarrio grew more secretive and frequent as pressure to arrest him mounted in 2020. Both Lamond and Tarrio took the stand at the week-long bench trial. Lamond said he never passed sensitive police information along to Tarrio. Tarrio as a witness in Lamond's defense said he never received any confidential information from the lieutenant. Lamond attorney Mark Schamel told Jackson they 'fundamentally disagree' on the facts of the case and urged her to give him a sentence without incarceration, instead asking for probation and suggesting that the police officer's ruined career and reputation in the media is punishment enough. 'Shane Lamond has been destroyed,' he said. Schamel also indicated that a pardon from Trump was not likely. Jackson rejected the notion that the potential for future clemency could sway her decision. The judge called the government's 48-month sentencing request 'excessive' but said that probation would 'not suffice.' She acknowledged that, until the incident regarding Tarrio, Lamond performed his job with 'honor.' Letters from his family painted a picture of a dedicated father, partner and son. However, that cuts both ways, Jackson said, and the then-officer 'should have known better than this.' 'You repeatedly dishonored the badge,' the judge added. Tarrio was arrested over the incident on Jan. 4, 2021, and ordered out of the nation's capital. He wasn't in Washington two days later, when a mob of Trump's supporters — including dozens of Proud Boys — stormed the Capitol in aim of stopping the certification of the 2020 presidential election. The Proud Boys leader was sentenced to 22 years in prison after being convicted of seditious conspiracy but was pardoned by Trump when he returned to the White House. Tarrio was in the courtroom Friday, alongside Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes and Ivan Raiklin, a Trump supporter who has deemed himself 'Secretary of Retribution.' Outside the courthouse, the former Proud Boys leader said Lamond is 'worthy' of a pardon from Trump. Rhodes, who was sentenced to an 18-year prison term for sedition that was commuted to time-served by Trump, called Lamond a 'J6er' for how he has been treated over the incident, a term of endearment for those who participated in the Capitol riot. 'This has to be corrected,' Tarrio said. Updated at 1:10 p.m. EDT. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Opinion - How long can America's colleges and universities survive Trump's ‘chaos tax'?
Opinion - How long can America's colleges and universities survive Trump's ‘chaos tax'?

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - How long can America's colleges and universities survive Trump's ‘chaos tax'?

The House proposed tax on college endowments has drawn considerable attention. Critics have rightly noted that it would effectively tax student scholarships as well as undermine donor intent, and lacks a clear public policy rationale. While this tax targets only the wealthiest institutions, every college and university in the country is paying a different kind of price — what I call a 'chaos tax.' This refers to the unfunded time, energy and expense required to respond to the administration's attacks on higher education, along with its onslaught of confusing policy proposals and demands. That the federal government would so recklessly jeopardize the future of American colleges and universities is mind-boggling. When my organization surveyed and interviewed hundreds of college presidents two years ago, they reported that the issues that mattered the most to them were tied to improving the education offered to students. Among their top priorities: fostering a climate for free expression, strengthening the college-to-career pipeline, and integrating new technologies. This year, college presidents tell us that the bulk of their time is taken up with responding to executive orders, protecting the rights of students, and responding to negative perceptions of higher ed. In both the near past and the present, many were also focused on the financial stability of their institutions. But the current policy climate has made this an even more pressing worry. College presidents now express concern that their institutions face an existential threat. Each time the federal government issues a threat or demand, institutions must pause to parse and interpret it. Each time funding is withheld or a grant is cancelled, institutions have to realign their already stressed budgets and make difficult decisions. Many executive orders have been paused by judges due to their lack of clarity or their lack of alignment with federal law or the Constitution. But whether they stand or fall, the toll on campus leaders — and the students they serve — is intense. If our largest universities are struggling to respond, imagine what this season of attack is doing to the many smaller and leaner institutions. To give just one example, the recent threat to disenroll Harvard's international students — a threat currently on hold thanks to a judicial ruling — has sent shock waves throughout all of higher education. Nationally, more than a million college and university students are from countries outside the U.S. For decades, American colleges and universities have welcomed them, seeing opportunities for enhanced peer-to-peer global learning, a way to keep tuition down for domestic students, and a chance to share the good news about American democracy and freedom to learn. In the wake of unprecedented arrests, sudden cancelling of visas and now the threat of disenrollment, international student applications have dropped dramatically across the board. Current international students are panicked about their future and unsure if they will be able to return after the summer. For many years, American higher education has been the envy of the world and one of our most successful exports. The international students who flock here pay top dollar to receive a world-class education, globally lauded credentials, and a deeper appreciation for the American way of life. In this case, the balance of trade is widely in our favor. The loss of international students means a less effective and robust education for all American students. Without revenue from international students, American students will have to pay more. And international enrollment is but a single target of chaotic orders and policy. With more of their college leadership investing time in navigating the many unforced errors of the current administration, American students will see less time spent on meeting their educational needs and fewer opportunities to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics and other important fields. That the federal government would recklessly endanger the future of so many American colleges and universities is vexing. What are our goals as a nation? Are we looking to create well-paying jobs and enhance American prosperity? Preserve the blessings of a free society? Improve health and life expectancy for more Americans? No country has been able to achieve these aims without significant investment. It is not just the elites that are bearing the burden of this chaos. The local religious college, the small comprehensive university that educates nurses and teachers, community colleges, the land grant public institution, the state branch campus — all of them are vulnerable to the same threatened withdrawal of federal support. Collectively, American higher education is being weakened and hollowed out. Our capacity for scientific innovation is being hobbled. Our pathways out of poverty are being pruned. Our future is being mortgaged. We need to insist on a sensible policy agenda for higher education — one that is preparing the country for the impact of AI and positioning our graduates to serve their communities and lead in their professions. Students, alumni and families who hope for a bright future for their children must join higher ed leaders and insist on an end to the chaos tax. Marjorie Hass, Ph.D., is president of the Council of Independent Colleges, an organization serving more than 600 independent colleges and universities, based in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Rep. Mary Miller faces bipartisan fury over "ignorant" Sikh comment
Rep. Mary Miller faces bipartisan fury over "ignorant" Sikh comment

Axios

time11 minutes ago

  • Axios

Rep. Mary Miller faces bipartisan fury over "ignorant" Sikh comment

Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) is coming under fire from colleagues in both parties after misidentifying a Sikh man as Muslim and saying he should have "never been allowed" to deliver the House's morning prayer. Why it matters: Even some Republicans are expressing disgust at Miller, a right-wing hardliner who has cultivated a reputation for making inflammatory comments. "People should think before they talk or type," vented one House Republican, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer candid thoughts on a fellow Republican. Miller's office has not responded to a request for comment on her post. What happened: After Giani Singh, a Sikh Grandhi from Southern New Jersey, delivered the House of Representatives' daily prayer, Miller said in a now-deleted post on X that it was "deeply troubling a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning." "This should have never been allowed to happen," she said, erroneously stating that the U.S. was "founded as a Christian nation" and that "our government should reflect that truth." Miller later edited the post to replace "Muslim" with "Sikh," then deleted it altogether. What they're saying: The House Republican who spoke to Axios said Miller's comments make her look "darn ignorant." Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said in a post on X that "a Sikh prayer on the House floor ... doesn't violate the Constitution, offend my Catholic faith, or throttle my support for Israel," adding, "Live and let live." "I'm deeply disappointed by Rep. Mary Miller's comments," Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), who has previously sponsored Singh as a guest chaplain, said in a statement to Axios. The Congressional Asian Pacific Islander Caucus condemned"Rep. Miller's anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim bigotry," calling her post "disgraceful." Reality check: The U.S. was not founded as an explicitly Christian nation, and the the First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of religion. Zoom out: This is not the first time Miller has been embroiled in controversy.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store