On August 25, the Cato Institute’s Clark Neily penned a blog post that provides a case against qualified immunity from the viewpoint of three conservative values: personal responsibility, limited government, and stopping judicial activism.
Freedom of speech and qualified immunity (QI). That’s the topic of a recent USA Today op-ed. The piece focuses on how QI protects college administrators. Specifically, when they violate a student’s First Amendment rights.
Today, federal lawmakers let down the American people by scraping qualified immunity reform from the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act negotiations. But the good news is, we still have many viable paths to accountability. Our fight is far from over.
Joanna Schwartz weighs in on qualified immunity (QI). Schwartz is a UCLA law professor. And a QI expert. Furthermore, she opposes the doctrine. On August 18, Joanna Schwartz appeared on the PBS News Hour. Specifically, to discuss QI.
Good cop Evan Douglas clears the air about qualified immunity. In his op-ed in The Hill, Officer Douglas says repealing the rule will benefit both police and the public.
Legal scholars Brooke Barnett and Lauren Bonds are the latest experts calling out qualified immunity (QI). On August 9, the duo wrote an op-ed on QI for NJ.com.
On August 6, USA Today’s Editorial Board published an op-ed. In it, they discuss QI reform. Particularly, state-based efforts to repeal the doctrine.
Last year, bad cop Darian Dasko traumatized Brittany Gilliam and her family. Nevertheless, that’s not preventing Dasko from running for sheriff. Still, there’s one thing this bad cop can’t claim: qualified immunity.
A New Hampshire police department listed qualified immunity as a “unique benefit” on a job post. A few hours later, the department took down the post. They labeled it “inappropriate.” Nevertheless, the post didn’t escape notice.