Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Ending Qualified Immunity Act would amend the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. §1983) to remove the defense commonly called "qualified immunity" for persons acting under color of state law. The bill adds that good faith, a defendant's belief the conduct was lawful, lack of a "clearly established" right, or inability to know the law shall not be defenses.
Progressives stress accountability; conservatives stress chilling effect on policing.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and narrowly drafted substantive reform that directly amends 42 U.S.C. §1983 to remove enumerated defenses (including good-faith and 'clearly established' formulations).
The Ending Qualified Immunity Act would amend the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. §1983) to remove the defense commonly called "qualified immunity" for persons acting under color of state law.
The bill adds that good faith, a defendant's belief the conduct was lawful, lack of a "clearly established" right, or inability to know the law shall not be defenses.
The change applies to any action pending on, or filed after, the date of enactment and includes congressional findings and a "sense of Congress."
Clear, narrow statutory language but major ideological and federalism conflicts and fiscal implications make enactment unlikely absent compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and narrowly drafted substantive reform that directly amends 42 U.S.C. §1983 to remove enumerated defenses (including good-faith and 'clearly established' formulations).
Progressives stress accountability; conservatives stress chilling effect on policing.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress accountability; conservatives stress chilling effect on policing.
Likely strongly supportive as restoring private remedies and accountability for constitutional rights violations.
Views the change as correcting a judicially created barrier to enforcement, though effects on litigation volume and implementation are uncertain.
Supportive of increased enforcement of constitutional rights but cautious about practical tradeoffs.
Sees benefits in clarity and accountability, while worrying about litigation costs, municipal fiscal impacts, and possible chilling effects on officials.
Likely opposed because it eliminates a long-used protection for good-faith government actors.
Views removal as increasing liability and chilling decisive public-safety actions, though exact consequences are uncertain.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Clear, narrow statutory language but major ideological and federalism conflicts and fiscal implications make enactment unlikely absent compromise.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress accountability; conservatives stress chilling effect on policing.
Clear, narrow statutory language but major ideological and federalism conflicts and fiscal implications make enactment unlikely absent comp…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and narrowly drafted substantive reform that directly amends 42 U.S.C. §1983 to remove enumerated defenses (including good-faith and 'clearly established'…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.