Latest news with #legalImmunity
Malay Mail
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
If Anwar's constitutional questions are preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court say it — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 6 — Cornell Law School offers an insightful read on qualified immunity. It says that qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a 'clearly established' statutory or constitutional right. A plaintiff is the party who sues in a civil suit. A defendant is the party sued. It says further that qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. (Emphasis added) When determining whether a right was 'clearly established,' courts in the US consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant's conduct violated the plaintiff's rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case. Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages , but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. (Emphasis added) Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery. Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials' actions. (Emphasis added) Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. Does qualified immunity apply to a prime minister in Malaysia? That's the constitutional question proposed to be referred by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for a ruling by the Federal Court. Some, even from the legal fraternity, have vilified Anwar and his legal team for the proposed constitutional questions which have been called preposterous, absurd and 'legal nonsense'. But if they are such, let the court having the ultimate authority say it.
Reuters
02-06-2025
- Business
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to review GEO Group's loss in immigrant detainee forced labor case
June 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide if GEO Group can quickly appeal a judge's ruling denying the private prison operator governmental immunity in a class action claiming immigrant detainees were forced to work and paid $1 a day. The justices will consider, opens new tab whether the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was correct that it could not immediately hear GEO's appeal of that ruling because it was incremental and merely allowed the 2014 lawsuit to proceed. The issue is technical, but a Supreme Court ruling in favor of GEO could be an important victory for other federal contractors who are sued in connection with government contracts and raise immunity as a defense. The lawsuit in Colorado federal court accuses GEO of engaging in labor trafficking by threatening detainees at an Aurora, Colorado, facility with solitary confinement if they refused to participate in a work program. GEO operates more than a dozen federal civil immigrant detention centers across the country and has faced at least two lawsuits over a work program at a Washington facility. The company in its petition said the appeal issue has divided federal appeals courts and created uncertainty for federal contractors. The government is generally immune from legal liability arising from its performance of typical governmental functions, and that can extend to contractors in some situations. "The alternative is a legal backdoor through which activists can undermine policies with which they disagree by targeting contractors with lawsuits they could never bring against the government," the company said in its petition. Florida-based GEO and lawyers for the former detainees who filed the lawsuit did not immediately respond to requests for comment. GEO has said that work programs at its facilities are voluntary and that federal regulations permitted the company to pay detainees as little as $1 a day to cook, clean, perform repairs, and staff a barber shop and library. The plaintiffs in a brief, opens new tab urging the Supreme Court not to take the case said the immunity issue overlaps with the merits of their claims against GEO, which should first be reviewed by the lower court. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January upheld rulings in separate cases requiring GEO to pay more than $23 million to the state of Washington and hundreds of immigrant detainees in the state for failing to pay the minimum wage to detainees who worked. The court rejected GEO's claim that it was entitled to immunity, saying the government did not dictate the wages GEO must pay to detainees or require it to operate the work program. The case is GEO Group v. Menocal, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 24-758. For GEO: Dominic Draye of Greenberg Traurig For the plaintiffs: Jennifer Bennett of Gupta Wessler Read more: GEO Group can't nix $23 mln verdict over immigrant detainee pay GEO Group must pay minimum wage to immigrant detainees, court rules GEO Group wins legal challenge to California ban on private immigrant prisons
Free Malaysia Today
31-05-2025
- General
- Free Malaysia Today
PM's reference application not about personal immunity, says AGC
The AGC said such legal references allow the courts, especially the Federal Court, to provide definitive rulings on complex legal matters. PETALING JAYA : The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has clarified that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's move to refer eight questions of law to the Federal Court for determination is not aimed at granting him personal immunity. In a statement today, the AGC described the referral as a matter of 'constitutional governance', not personal privilege. 'Based on the AGC's preliminary observation, the questions referred are not intended to create absolute immunity for any individual,' it said. 'Instead, they raise novel constitutional issues that have yet to be adjudicated, specifically those relating to the intersection of civil litigation and a sitting prime minister's ability to effectively carry out executive functions.' The statement comes amid growing public interest after it was reported that Anwar wanted the apex court to rule whether Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from a suit filed by Yusoff Rawther four years ago. Other questions include whether civil suits involving conduct prior to assuming office can continue if they impair a prime minister's ability to govern, and if the Constitution implies a judicial threshold in such situations. The court has fixed June 3 for all parties to make oral applications on the application. The AGC also said such references allow the courts, especially the Federal Court, to provide definitive rulings on such complex legal matters. 'The AGC respects the integrity of this constitutional mechanism and will assess any intervention requests based on legal merit and public interest, not politically charged sentiments,' it said in the same statement.
