SB 1913, the “Ending Qualified Immunity Act,” would amend 42 U.S.C. 1983 (the civil rights statute derived from the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871) to eliminate qualified immunity as a defense in actions brought under that statute. The bill states that government officials sued for depriving someone of federal constitutional or statutory rights could not avoid liability by arguing they acted in good faith, reasonably believed their conduct was lawful, or that the right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time.
The bill also includes findings and a sense of Congress section explaining that Congress originally intended section 1983 to provide a robust remedy against state and local officials who violate civil rights, and that later Supreme Court decisions—especially Pierson v. Ray and Harlow v. Fitzgerald—expanded qualified immunity in ways the sponsors view as inconsistent with the statute’s text and purpose. The legislation would apply to actions pending on or filed after the date of enactment, making the change immediately relevant to ongoing and future civil rights litigation.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would materially change the legal defenses available to state and local officials and other persons acting under color of law in section 1983 lawsuits. It would remove the qualified-immunity doctrine from that cause of action by statute, potentially increasing the ability of plaintiffs to recover damages for constitutional and federal-rights violations and reducing dismissal of claims based on the “clearly established law” standard. The bill would amend the Revised Statutes/42 U.S.C. 1983 directly and would affect civil rights litigation nationwide involving police, corrections officers, municipal officials, and other government actors.
Sentiment
The available context suggests strong support from the bill’s sponsors, who frame the measure as a correction to an erroneous judicial interpretation and a restoration of congressional intent. The bill was introduced by Senators Markey, Warren, and Sanders and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but no votes or committee transcript are provided, so there is no recorded bipartisan support or opposition in the supplied materials. Overall, the tone of the bill is reform-oriented and critical of qualified immunity.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether qualified immunity should continue to protect government officials from liability in section 1983 cases. Supporters argue the doctrine improperly shields officials even when rights are violated and frustrates civil-rights enforcement; opponents of similar reforms typically argue that eliminating the defense could expose officials to increased litigation and personal liability for split-second decisions, especially in law-enforcement contexts. Because no hearing transcript or vote record is included, the specific objections of committee members are not available, but the issue is inherently contentious around police accountability, municipal liability, and the balance between remedies for rights violations and protections for public officials.
Qualified Immunity Act of 2023 This bill provides statutory authority for qualified immunity for law enforcement officers in civil cases involving constitutional violations. Current law provides a statutory civil cause of action against state and local government actors (e.g., law enforcement officers) for violations of constitutional rights, also known as Section 1983 lawsuits. The Supreme Court has also found an implied cause of action against federal law enforcement officers in certain situations (e.g., Fourth Amendment violations), also known as Bivens lawsuits. However, under the judicial doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary duties are generally shielded from civil liability, unless their actions violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. The bill provides statutory authority for these principles with respect to law enforcement officers. Specifically, under the bill, law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) at the time of the alleged violation, the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established or the state of the law was not sufficiently clear for every reasonable officer to know that the conduct was unconstitutional; or (2) a court has held that the specific conduct at issue is constitutional. The bill applies to federal, state, and local law enforcement officers. It also specifies that law enforcement agencies and local governments may not be held liable if their officers are entitled to qualified immunity.