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

NBC News20-05-2025

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.
Egregious cases
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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump-Musk feud live updates: President says Tesla boss will face ‘serious consequences' if he funds Dems to run against GOP
Trump-Musk feud live updates: President says Tesla boss will face ‘serious consequences' if he funds Dems to run against GOP

The Independent

time5 hours ago

  • The Independent

Trump-Musk feud live updates: President says Tesla boss will face ‘serious consequences' if he funds Dems to run against GOP

President Donald Trump has said that he has 'no intention' of speaking to Elon Musk following their public blowup over the Republican spending package up for debate in Congress. 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Trump told NBC News on Saturday. 'I have no intention of speaking to him.' 'I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful. You could not disrespect the office of the president,' he added. Trump also said that Musk will face 'serious consequences' if he chooses to use his significant wealth to fund Democrats. Musk's opposition to the spending bill could lead the billionaire to fund challengers to Republicans who voted for it. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News. This comes after Musk deleted his tweet in which he claimed that Trump is in 'the Epstein Files.' Musk initially shared the post on Thursday as the spat between him and the president exploded. The billionaire also suggested that Trump should be impeached. 'The Epstein Files' is a phrase used to describe information that U.S. authorities hold on the disgraced financier and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 08:00 Musk was Trump's tweeter-in-chief. Now he's using X against him James Liddell and Alicja Hagopian write: Elon Musk's X profile is like a window into his psyche: an inescapable stream of consciousness where impulsive tweets reveal his unfiltered thoughts and shifting moods. Musk harnessed his social media platform to propel Donald Trump to the White House, feeding anti-Democrat content and election conspiracy theories to his followers. Now Musk is turning that same platform – home to nearly 600 million monthly users – against him. After posting earlier in the week that Trump's signature budget policy was a 'disgusting abomination' that will 'drive America into debt slavery', the billionaire is openly taunting Trump on X, even calling for his impeachment. Musk was Trump's tweeter-in-chief. Now he's using X against him He tweeted about Donald Trump incessantly, then Elon Musk rebuked him. James Liddell and Alicja Hagopian take a look at how the Trump-Musk breakup unfolded, through X Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 07:00 WATCH: JD Vance breaks his silence on Trump and Musk feud after seeing Elon's Epstein tweet Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 06:00 VOICES: Why Trump's second state visit to the UK may never happen... Jon Sopel writes: Whatever accusations that detractors could level at Sir Keir Starmer, the words show pony, flashy or flamboyant wouldn't be among them. He hates the performative in politics and isn't much interested in the flummery that goes with high office. However, there has been one notable occasion when he did go in for some carefully rehearsed and orchestrated theatricality. It was when he sat down with Donald Trump in the Oval Office; the world's press was there to record the occasion. He reached into the inside pocket of his suit jacket and produced a letter with the red royal seal on the envelope – and handed it to a beaming Donald Trump. Why Trump's state visit to the UK may never happen... Inviting Trump for an unprecedented second state visit was a clever diplomatic ploy by the PM, writes Jon Sopel. But actually hosting it would be fraught with risks – so is the plan to make it quietly go away? Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 05:00 Stephen King puts the Trump and Musk feud into perspective with one scathing question Greg Evans writes: The acclaimed author Stephen King has issued a blistering critique of the ongoing feud between US president Donald Trump and his former ally, Elon Musk. This week, the two former allies bitterly fell out with each sharing strong accusations against the other on social media. Musk, who infamously invested millions into Trump's campaign and quickly dubbed himself 'first buddy,' became the head of the Department of Government Efficiency. The department was tasked with slashing the federal budget. However, Musk soon found himself ousted from the president's inner circle after clashing with Trump over his proposed spending bill. 'The world actually has problems,' complained the author when addressing the fallout between the pair Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 04:00 Donald Trump arrives at a UFC event shortly after sending the National Guard to crush anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles Shortly after the White House issued a statement confirming that it was deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to break up the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles, President Donald Trump made an appearance at UFC 316 in Newark, New Jersey. Graig Graziosi8 June 2025 03:26 WATCH: Trump defends decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to US to face charges Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 03:15 Republicans call for an end to Trump-Musk feud: 'I hope it doesn't distract us' Seung Min Kim and Chris Megerian write: As the Republican Party anticipates potential fallout from Donald Trump's public dispute with Elon Musk, prominent lawmakers and conservative voices are calling for reconciliation, wary of the repercussions of a sustained conflict. The animosity between the two figures could pose challenges for the Republican agenda, particularly concerning tax and border spending legislation championed by Trump but criticised by Musk. The US president has played down any reconciliation, calling Musk 'the man who has lost his mind' Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 02:30 White House confirms Trump is sending 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to squash anti-ICE protests White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that President Donald Trump is deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles to arrest anti-ICE demonstrators. Her full statement appears below: 'In recent days, violent mobs have attacked ICE Officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California. These operations are essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States. In the wake of this violence, California's feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens. That is why President Trump has signed a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester. The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs. These criminals will be arrested and swiftly brought to justice. The Commander-in-Chief will ensure the laws of the United States are executed fully and completely.' Graig Graziosi8 June 2025 02:28 Trump threatens to use the federal government to "solve the problem" of anti-ICE protests in California Donald Trump broke his silence on the ongoing protests in Los Angeles against ICE agents who carried out a massive raid in the city this weekend. The president threatened to use the power of the federal government to 'solve the problem' in the city if Governor Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass 'can't do their jobs.' Graig Graziosi8 June 2025 01:50

Trump has taught us one thing: Scotland needs more mega-wealthy people
Trump has taught us one thing: Scotland needs more mega-wealthy people

The Herald Scotland

time6 hours ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Trump has taught us one thing: Scotland needs more mega-wealthy people

All joshing aside, what we can say is that what we are witnessing is nothing less than the rapid erosion of American democracy. This is particularly apparent in the prominence given to oligarchs in positions of power in Washington. As always with Trump, this has not been done clandestinely but in the full, public glare. A man without shame, he has surrounded himself with what might best be described as the filthy rich. Read more Rosemary Goring In that regard, he started as he meant to go on. As Evan Osnos writes in his revelatory new book, The Haves and Have-Yachts: Dispatches on the Ultrarich, Trump embraced the plutocracy on January 20, 2025, the day he took office. Within arm's reach of him as he swore his oath were the world's three richest individuals: Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. A step away were Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, and Tim Cook, CEO of Apple. 'There were so many billionaires on stage,' recalls Osnos, 'that the leaders of Congress were relegated to the audience.' Not long thereafter, Trump promoted 13 billionaires to the top ranks of his administration, chief among them Musk, who would soon wield a chainsaw to numerous branches of government and consign thousands of employees to penury. Unelected and unchecked, and pretty much unhindered by the law, Musk and his coevals could do almost whatever they pleased, and thus far they have. Of course, America has always been a place which puts mammon above morals. The pursuit of its fabled dream has had at its heart the amassing of wealth. To become a millionaire was the goal of many of its citizens who believed, misguidedly, that it would lead to that other dream: happiness. As time passed, however, it was not enough to be a millionaire; that was mere shrapnel. The next target was to be a billionaire. First atop that pinnacle was John D. Rockefeller who, through Standard Oil, which refined and marketed nearly 90 percent of the oil produced in America, was the moguls' mogul in what was known as the Gilded Age. In his wake came our own Andrew Carnegie, whose involvement in the steel industry made him so rich he was earning more money than he knew what do with. Rockefeller and Carnegie divided opinion. Muckrakers deemed them unscrupulous, accusing them of bribing political officials, circumventing the law and treating their workers badly. Others took a more benign view, acknowledging that their wealth was often directed towards good causes - in Carnegie's case public libraries, which are, or at least were, one of the bulwarks of a civilised society. Andrew Carnegie (Image: free)Concerned that their path to heaven might be pockmarked with potholes, Rockefeller and Carnegie salved their consciences by remodelling themselves as philanthropists. 'Surplus wealth,' Carnegie wrote, 'is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community.' Whether today's trillionaires feel likewise remains to be seen. The omens do not look promising. As the title of Evan Osnos's book suggests, they are more interested in acquiring yachts the length of Leith Walk than doing anything to elevate humankind. What these people must have are so-called gigayachts – over 100 metres long - which shrinks might say are penis-substitutes. 'Even among the truly rich,' writes Osnos, 'there is a gap between the haves and the have-yachts.' Much of the time, he adds, the yachts 'dwell beyond the reach of ordinary law enforcement. They cruise in international waters, and, when they dock, local cops tend to give them a wide berth; the boats often have private security, and their owners may well be friends with the prime minister.' Sickening, selfish and sinister as all this may be, making you pine for the era of the guillotine, I am not entirely antipathetic to those whose Swiss bank accounts have swelled because of their entrepreneurship. Here in Scotland, where billionaires are rarer than McDonalds on the moon, there is an over-reliance on the state to ensure that everything is properly funded and maintained and that new ventures are allowed to flourish. Read more In my main area of concern – broadly speaking, the arts – dependence on Creative Scotland is unhealthy and monopolist, leading to disenchantment and frustration. Attempting to adhere to the agency's manufactured criteria and its opaque bureaucracy is enough to reduce even the most persistent applicants to apoplexy. There are various individuals and businesses with the means to make a difference, but they are few and far between. Unlike in America, where giving to good causes in the cultural sphere is widespread, no such habit exists in this country. Indeed, the enlightened handful who have sponsored arts events are regarded not with gratitude but suspicion and - in the case of Baillie Gifford's involvement in book festivals - mind-boggling hostility. What's needed is a shift in attitude towards philanthropy, both by those with money and those who need it; such a cultural rethink would allow those with talent to receive help to develop their particular passion. I often think admiringly of the Italian Renaissance and how its flourishing was underwritten in part by the Medicis, whose patronage of Botticelli, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and countless others was pivotal. Sadly, I see no Medici on the horizon. More's the pity, because we need them more than ever. Rosemary Goring is a columnist and author. Her most recent book is Homecoming: The Scottish Years of Mary, Queen of Scots. Its sequel, Exile: The Captive Years of Mary, Queen of Scots, is published next month

Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'
Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'

The Herald Scotland

time6 hours ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'

"It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the "irreparable harm" factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices - Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices - Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.

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