As much as the Trump lawsuits are being heralded, we did not hear about one ruling that was IMHO very favorable to reign in Federal misbehavior.
Arlington, Va.—In a unanimous opinion issued today by the U.S. Supreme Court, and authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled in Tanzin v. Tanvir that individuals may seek damages as a remedy when federal officers violate their rights. The opinion closely tracks an amicus brief submitted by the Institute for Justice.
The case involved FBI agents who retaliated against Muslim-Americans and green-card holders who followed the dictates of their faith and refused to cooperate with the FBI by spying on their own communities. As a result of their refusal to cooperate, these individuals were placed on the No Fly List, which caused significant hardship, such as the inability to travel to visit family or for work.
But before you start jumping for joy believing Qualified Immunity is dead, it is not:
Both the Government and respondents agree that government officials are entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense when sued in their individual capacities for money damages under RFRA. Indeed, respondents emphasize that the “qualified immunity defense was created for precisely these circumstances,” Brief for Respondents 22, and is a “powerful shield” that “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who flout clearly established law,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 42; see District of Columbia v. Wesby
I believe the decision (that you can read here) removes at least one important layer of governmental shielding protecting them when abuse happens. I do not read anything about being constricted to the Federal Government (which needs it badly) so I think it can be applied also to to your state or local agency. Basically while you still can’t sue the shitty Parkland Sheriff’s Deputies, the parents can bring havoc to BSO.
And of course, the above must be seen under the usual IANAL warning.
Hat Tip to Dan R.
Unanimous! Incredible!
Federal (and State/Local) employees should have protection against individual legal action, under the condition they did their job in accordance with policy, regulation, statute, and within normally accepted bounds of behavior.
An air traffic controller should not get sued because of a mid-air unless it can be demonstrated they were negligent. A FBI agent should not face a lawsuit because a suspect got injured during an arrest, unless the injury can be demonstrated to be malicious. Etc… Intent plays a major role here.
So, while I am glad to see this decision from the Supreme Court, I am cautious because there is a burden of proof that may not be met. Result will be lawfare in an attempt to bankrupt some low level employee who did not give you the decision you wanted.
The rule you’re asking for is nothing more than the rule that should apply to anyone, whether government minion or not. If I do my job in a way reasonable people agree is reasonable, I shouldn’t be liable for negligence claims.
There certainly is a risk of outrageous lawsuits and even outrageous verdicts, but the solution isn’t to give special protections to one class of citizens who have no particular claim on special privileges. Instead, the solution is to apply sane rules of law to everyone.
when sued in their individual capacities for money damages under RFRA. That’s actually kind of a limit. It speaks to individual lawsuits which is the only thing qualified immunity should have been about. As a technician for the school district I carried a heckin big liability insurance policy and my job instructions specifically and in my own interest prevented me from going near the little darlings. And specifically this decision does NOT mention criminal charges. IMO