This bill protects police officers from being sued for damages when they violate someone's constitutional rights, as long as the officer didn't know—or reasonably shouldn't have known—that their actions were illegal at the time they did them. Right now, courts use a judge-made rule called "qualified immunity" to shield officers from these lawsuits. This bill would write that same protection into federal law.

Here's what that means in practice: If someone believes a police officer violated their rights—say, an unlawful search or excessive force—they can still sue. But the officer can argue they shouldn't have to pay damages because the law wasn't "clearly established" that what they did was wrong. For example, if an officer uses a particular restraint technique and no court has previously ruled that exact technique unconstitutional, the officer could claim qualified immunity. The officer only loses this protection if a court has already specifically ruled that the conduct in question is unconstitutional.

This applies to all police officers—federal, state, and local—and also protects police departments and local governments from being held liable when their officers have qualified immunity. Supporters argue this protects officers from frivolous lawsuits and allows them to do their jobs without constant fear of personal liability. Critics contend it makes it harder for people who've had their rights violated to get compensation and reduces accountability for police misconduct.

Qualified Immunity Act of 2025

Foxx, Virginia

Qualified Immunity Act of 2025This 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 that&nbsp;every reasonable officer would have&nbsp;known 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.