Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Rights — qualified immunity

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 17, 2012//

Civil Rights — qualified immunity

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 17, 2012//

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil

Civil Rights — qualified immunity

A private individual temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity from suit under Section 1983.

Nothing about the reasons this Court has given for recognizing immunity under §1983 counsels against carrying forward the common law rule. First, the government interest in avoiding “unwarranted timidity” on the part of those engaged in the public’s business— which has been called “the most important special government immunity-producing concern,” Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U. S. 399, 409—is equally implicated regardless of whether the individual sued as a state actor works for the government full-time or on some other basis. Second, affording immunity to those acting on the government’s behalf serves to “‘ensure that talented candidates [are] not deterred by the threat of damages suits from entering public service.’ ” Id., at 408. The government, in need of specialized knowledge or expertise, may look outside its permanent workforce to secure the services of private individuals. But because those individuals are free to choose other work that would not expose them to liability for government actions, the most talented candidates might decline public engagements if they did not receive the same immunity enjoyed by their public employee counterparts. Third, the public interest in ensuring performance of government duties free from the distractions that can accompany lawsuits is implicated whether those duties are discharged by private individuals or permanent government employees. Finally, distinguishing among those who carry out the public’s business based on their particular relationship with the government creates significant line-drawing problems and can deprive state actors of the ability to “ ‘reasonably anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability for damages,’ ” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 646.

621 F. 3d 1069, reversed.

10-1018 Filarsky v. Delia

Roberts, C.J.; Ginsburg, J., concurring; Sotomayor, J., concurring.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests