Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill would amend 42 U.S.C. 1983 to codify a statutory qualified immunity defense for law enforcement officers in individual-capacity suits. It bars liability if the constitutional or federal right was not clearly established or if a final court decision found the specific conduct lawful; it also shields employing agencies when an officer is found not liable.
Progressives emphasize decreased accountability and harm to plaintiffs
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and directly accomplishes a substantive statutory codification of the qualified immunity defense by amending 42 U.S.C. 1983, supplying definitions, and setting an effective date.
This bill would amend 42 U.S.C. 1983 to codify a statutory qualified immunity defense for law enforcement officers in individual-capacity suits.
It bars liability if the constitutional or federal right was not clearly established or if a final court decision found the specific conduct lawful; it also shields employing agencies when an officer is found not liable.
The bill broadly defines "law enforcement officer" and "law enforcement agency" and takes effect 180 days after enactment.
Narrow textual change but high ideological stakes and limited compromise features make enactment unlikely absent aligned chamber majorities.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and directly accomplishes a substantive statutory codification of the qualified immunity defense by amending 42 U.S.C. 1983, supplying definitions, and setting an effective date.
Progressives emphasize decreased accountability and harm to plaintiffs
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize decreased accountability and harm to plaintiffs
Likely to view the bill negatively as a statutory rollback of civil-rights remedies and an added barrier to holding law enforcement accountable.
Sees codification as entrenching a high hurdle for victims of misconduct and potentially reducing deterrence.
Probably mixed: accepts rationale of protecting reasonable officers but concerned about reduced accountability and legal access for valid claims.
Wants clearer balancing provisions, empirical review, or narrowly tailored exceptions to protect rights.
Likely to support the bill as a positive restoration and codification of judicially developed qualified immunity protections.
Views it as necessary to shield officers from harassment and preserve public safety decision-making.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow textual change but high ideological stakes and limited compromise features make enactment unlikely absent aligned chamber majorities.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize decreased accountability and harm to plaintiffs
Narrow textual change but high ideological stakes and limited compromise features make enactment unlikely absent aligned chamber majorities.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and directly accomplishes a substantive statutory codification of the qualified immunity defense by amending 42 U.S.C. 1983, supplying definitions, and settin…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.