16 Words Omitted from an Important Law That Affected Civil Rights
In the United States, there has been an ongoing debate surrounding the Qualified Immunity doctrine. While it has been in place for many years, it has only truly gained attention in recent years. Many people are concerned that Qualified Immunity provides too much protection for police officers that engage in wrongdoing, making it much harder for victims to seek justice.
In recent news, the Supreme Court took on the issue of Qualified Immunity and made a crucial decision regarding its future. However, to truly understand the relevance of this decision, it is important to look back at the history of Qualified Immunity and how it came to be.
Qualified Immunity was first established in 1967, as a means to protect government officials from being held accountable for actions taken in the line of duty. The initial idea was that if officials believed their actions were legal at the time they were taken, they should not be punished retroactively, unless it is clear that their actions violated established laws or civil rights.
In its original state, Qualified Immunity was designed to strike a balance between the need for government officials to carry out their duties without fear of punishment and the rights of citizens to seek justice for civil rights violations. However, over the years, Qualified Immunity began to be interpreted in ways that limited the ability of victims to seek justice for their civil rights being violated.
One of the most crucial aspects of Qualified Immunity is the “clearly established” standard. This means that if a victim wishes to sue a government official for actions taken in the line of duty, they must show that the official violated a clearly established law or right that was explicitly set out in a previous court ruling. Over time, this standard became more and more difficult to meet, making it nearly impossible for victims and their families to sue for damages.
In recent years, there have been a number of cases involving police officers that have highlighted the need for reform of the Qualified Immunity doctrine. Many believe that the current interpretation of the doctrine shields officers from accountability, even in cases where they clearly broke the law or violated civil rights.
In fact, the continued use of Qualified Immunity has led to the omission of 16 crucial words from a landmark civil rights law. These words were originally included in Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Section 1983 gives individuals the right to sue government officials who violate their civil rights under color of law.
The original wording of Section 1983 stated that officials could be held liable if they acted “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage” to deprive an individual of their rights. It is important to note that this language was broad and meant to encompass all possible ways that an official could act to deprive an individual of their rights.
However, in 1967, the Supreme Court added the Qualified Immunity doctrine to Section 1983, which created a significant loophole. With this addition, it became necessary to prove that the government official was not only acting under color of law but was also violating a “clearly established” right. This effectively closed many routes that individuals could take to pursue justice for civil rights violations.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Qualified Immunity doctrine has reopened a debate about whether or not it is fair for police officers to have such protections. While some people believe that it is necessary to keep officers from being punished for actions they believed to be legal at the time, others believe that it gives too much latitude to officers who violate civil rights.
Ultimately, the decision regarding Qualified Immunity will have important implications for the relationship between citizens and law enforcement. As the debate continues, it is important to keep in mind the original intent of the Qualified Immunity doctrine and its impact on civil rights. Revisiting the original wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which included the omitted 16 words, could provide a path forward for reform that balances the needs of government officials with the rights of individuals to seek justice for civil rights violations.