Doctrine of Qualified Immunity (as interpreted in Harlow v. Fitzgerald and Pearson v. Callahan)

← Back to Category — Criminal Justice Reform

End Qualified Immunity for Police Officers

AKA “Restore integrity in justice”


Which agency/agencies promulgated the regulation? *
U.S. Congress and federal courts (judicial doctrine enforced through Department of Justice oversight
Which title, parts, and/or sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) should be rescinded? *
Qualified immunity for police officers is a judicially created doctrine established through court decisions, primarily by the U.S. Supreme Court, and is not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). As such, there are no specific CFR sections to rescind. Instead, addressing this issue would require legislative action or judicial reform. The following action steps are appropriate for ending qualified immunity: Legislative Action: The U.S. Congress would need to pass legislation to explicitly end qualified immunity for police officers. This could involve amending existing laws, such as Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, or creating new laws to limit or remove qualified immunity for law enforcement officers in civil lawsuits. Judicial Reform: Alternatively, federal courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, would need to revisit and potentially overturn past decisions that established or expanded qualified immunity. This would be a judicial decision, rather than a regulatory one, and would require the Court to reconsider its stance on this legal doctrine
What is your name?
—OPTIONAL--
Is your proposed rescission a notice of proposed rulemaking, final rule, direct final rule, interim final rule, or interpretive rule? *
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
What is the name of the regulation being rescinded, if applicable? *
Doctrine of Qualified Immunity (as interpreted in Harlow v. Fitzgerald and Pearson v. Callahan)
Please provide a short summary of the justifications for the rescission. *
This legal loophole insulates public officials from accountability even in cases of clear rights violations. Removing it allows constitutional rights to be enforced meaningfully.
Please insert the address of the agency. [NPRM, DFR, and IFR only]
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Please insert the contact information for the agency. *
Andrew Braniff, Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, (202) 514-3831, EMP.Lit@crt.usdoj.gov.
What is the background for the regulation being rescinded? *
The doctrine of Qualified Immunity undermines civil rights enforcement by requiring that a prior court case exist with near-identical facts before an official can be held liable. This protects repeat violators and discourages legitimate suits.
Explain the reasons for the rescission. *
Eliminating Qualified Immunity restores access to justice for victims of civil rights abuses, improves trust in public institutions, and aligns enforcement with constitutional values
Describe the text of the relevant C.F.R. provisions as it will exist after the rescission. *
N/A – This change would be implemented through Congressional legislation or Supreme Court reversal.
Please insert the name of the current agency head. *
Pam Bondi
Please insert the title of the agency head. *
Attorney General, US Department of Justice

← Back to Category — Criminal Justice Reform