..................................................................... (Original Signature of Member) 116TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. ll To amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. AMASH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on llllllllllllll A BILL To amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ending Qualified Im- 5 munity Act’’. 6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 7 VerDate Mar 15 2010 15:59 Jun 03, 2020 The Congress finds as follows: Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\USERS\ECBLOUNT\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\7.0\GEN\C\AMASH_051 2 1 (1) In 1871, Congress passed the Ku Klux 2 Klan Act to combat rampant violations of civil and 3 constitutionally secured rights across the nation, 4 particularly in the post-Civil War South. 5 (2) Included in the act was a provision, now 6 codified at section 1983 of title 42, United States 7 Code, which provides a cause of action for individ- 8 uals to file lawsuits against State and local officials 9 who violate their legal and constitutionally secured 10 VerDate Mar 15 2010 rights. 11 (3) Section 1983 has never included a defense 12 or immunity for government officials who act in 13 good faith when violating rights, nor has it ever had 14 a defense or immunity based on whether the right 15 was ″clearly established″ at the time of the violation. 16 (4) From the law’s beginning in 1871, through 17 the 1960s, government actors were not afforded 18 qualified immunity for violating rights. 19 (5) In 1967, the Supreme Court in Pierson v. 20 Ray, 386 U.S. 547, suddenly found that government 21 actors had a good faith defense for making arrests 22 under unconstitutional statutes based on a common 23 law defense for the tort of false arrest. 15:59 Jun 03, 2020 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\USERS\ECBLOUNT\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\7.0\GEN\C\AMASH_051 3 1 (6) The Court later extended this beyond false 2 arrests, turning it into a general good faith defense 3 for government officials. 4 (7) Finally, in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 5 800 (1982), the Court found the subjective search 6 for good faith in the government actor unnecessary, 7 and replaced it with an ‘‘objective reasonableness’’ 8 standard that requires that the right be ‘‘clearly es- 9 tablished’’ at the time of the violation for the de- 10 fendant to be liable. 11 (8) This doctrine of qualified immunity has se- 12 verely limited the ability of many plaintiffs to re- 13 cover damages under section 1983 when their rights 14 have been violated by State and local officials. As a 15 result, the intent of Congress in passing the law has 16 been frustrated, and Americans’ rights secured by 17 the Constitution have not been appropriately pro- 18 tected. 19 SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS. 20 It is the sense of the Congress that we must correct 21 the erroneous interpretation of section 1983 which pro22 vides for qualified immunity, and reiterate the standard 23 found on the face of the statute, which does not limit li24 ability on the basis of the defendant’s good faith beliefs VerDate Mar 15 2010 15:59 Jun 03, 2020 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\USERS\ECBLOUNT\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\7.0\GEN\C\AMASH_051 4 1 or on the basis that the right was not ‘‘clearly established’’ 2 at the time of the violation. 3 SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. 4 Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 5 1983) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘It 6 shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought 7 under this section that the defendant was acting in good 8 faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or other9 wise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when 10 it was committed. Nor shall it be a defense or immunity 11 that the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 12 Constitution or laws were not clearly established at the 13 time of their deprivation by the defendant, or that the 14 state of the law was otherwise such that the defendant 15 could not reasonably have been expected to know whether 16 his or her conduct was lawful.’’. VerDate Mar 15 2010 15:59 Jun 03, 2020 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\USERS\ECBLOUNT\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\7.0\GEN\C\AMASH_051