When the Law Protects the Wrong People: Reassessing Qualified Immunity
What happens when police officers violate someone’s rights but can’t be sued because of a legal loophole? Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields officers from civil lawsuits, even when they clearly violate the Constitution. Recent events, like the death of Renee Good in Minnesota, show how this rule can leave victims and their families with almost no legal options. Qualified immunity has become a controversial issue because it can make the law appear to favor officers over ordinary people, raising questions about accountability and fairness. At its core, this legal rule is supposed to balance protecting officers doing their job with the public’s right to be safe from unconstitutional actions, but today, it seems to favor the officers too heavily.
Qualified immunity started as a way to protect police from lawsuits when they made mistakes while enforcing the law. The idea goes back to the 1960s in Pierson v. Ray, where the Supreme Court said officers acting in good faith should not be punished personally. Over time, the standard has changed: now, to sue successfully, a plaintiff has to prove that the officer violated a “clearly established” constitutional right, something that courts interpret very narrowly. In other words, even if an officer uses excessive force or violates someone’s rights, a lawsuit can fail if no precedent was set.
The problem is that this makes it extremely hard for victims to hold police accountable, especially in modern situations that look different from past cases. Civil rights groups and journalists have criticized qualified immunity for creating a kind of legal shield that allows officers to avoid consequences for misconduct. In many cases of excessive force, courts throw out lawsuits before they reach trial because of qualified immunity. This has eroded public trust in law enforcement and the legal system.
Some Supreme Court cases show how the rule works in practice. In Anderson v. Creighton, the Court declared that officers can be protected if a “reasonable officer” could think their actions were legal, even if they were not. Later, Tolan v. Cotton clarified that courts have to look at the facts in the plaintiff’s favor, but even then, the “clearly established” rule blocks cases from moving forward.
Recent events highlight how these rules affect real people. In January 2026, multiple agents were involved in deadly shootings, including Renee Good, who was shot in Minneapolis by ICE agents during a federal immigration operation. The Department of Homeland Security initially called the shootings justified, and civil suits for damages are already facing challenges due to qualified immunity. This shows that the law often prevents victims’ families from getting answers or holding officers accountable, even when video evidence or eyewitness reports suggest wrongdoing. Beyond federal cases, notable areas like New York City have limited qualified immunity in lawsuits to make accountability easier and the system fairer; Some lawmakers in Congress have proposed ending the rule nationwide. These efforts reflect a growing consensus that the law is too protective of officers at the expense of civil rights.
Today, qualified immunity protects officers even when their actions clearly violate one’s constitutional rights. This makes civil lawsuits impossible and deteriorates public trust in the defense force. Refinement is necessary to make the law applicable to all citizens and to restore accountability. Reforming this rule would ensure that constitutional rights are respected and the public has the right to sue when they are violated. The current system damages trust, and the legitimacy of law enforcement is undermined when repeated cases fail despite clear misconduct, giving the impression that the law protects officers more than ordinary citizens.
Qualified immunity was created to protect police officers performing their jobs, but in its current form, victims are not given justice when their constitutional rights are violated. Recent deadly incidents illustrate how the doctrine can be abused when manipulated, and why reform is needed. Courts and lawmakers should revise qualified immunity so that victims of constitutional violations can seek justice while officers can still perform their duties without fear of false-claim lawsuits. Doing so would strengthen both public trust and the rule of law, ensuring that constitutional rights still have meaning to them in everyday life.
Bibliography
“Anderson v. Creighton – Case Brief Summary – Facts, Issue, Holding & Reasoning – Studicata.” 2026. Studicata.com. 2026. https://www.studicata.com/case-briefs/case/anderson-v-creighton.
Greene, Jenna. 2026. “Renee Good Shooting Could Test Limits of ICE Immunity.” Reuters, January 26, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/renee-good-shooting-could-test-limits-ice-immunity-2026-01-26/.
“The Origins of Qualified Immunity: How a Civil Rights Case Led to a Legal Shield for Police Misconduct.” 2025. Chicago Civil Rights Firm – Julian Johnson. February 11, 2025. https://julianjohnsonlaw.com/the-origins-of-qualified-immunity-how-a-civil-rights-case-led-to-a-legal-shield-for-police-misconduct/.
“Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014).” 2023. Justia Law. 2023. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/650/.