The True Role of Sequencing in Determining Qualified Immunity
Steven Antonio Fernandez | Columbia College
Edited by: DeVon Thompson
Abstract:
Qualified Immunity (Q.I.) has evolved into a controversial shield often deflecting accountability for alleged constitutional and civil rights violations by government officials. This review delves into the intricate terrain of Q.I., exploring its origins, evolution, and implications within the American legal system. From the foundational case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald to the landmark case of Saucier v. Katz that introduces the controversial two-step framework for analyzing Q.I. claims this article is meant to expand upon conversation regarding this potential crack in the American judicial system. Specifically, this review will be focusing on the concept of sequencing, and whether the pivotal departure from mandatory sequencing through Pearson v. Callahan was as good of an idea as many judges claim it to be. This has led to concerns over the abuse of Q.I. and a dilution of accountability for government officials with cases such as Anderson v. Creighton and Wilson V. Layne emphasizing the consequences of failing to establish precedent through constitutional analysis, preventing future constitutional violations by government officials. Despite these debates, the central question remains: How do we strike a balance between accountability and efficiency within the American Criminal Justice System? By critically examining the evolution and implications of Q.I., this review aims to stimulate discourse and inspire innovative approaches to address the complexities inherent in safeguarding constitutional rights while ensuring judicial expediency.
—————————————————————————————————————————
On the eve of November 14, A. Ernest Fitzgerald was called before a Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress to testify regarding unexpected costs totaling $2 billion linked to the C5-A transport plane and its technical challenges. His words, simply put, were humiliating for his superiors. Consequently, his position in the Air Force as a management analyst was terminated in a departmental reorganization around a year later in 1970. Sensing that his dismissal was more a result of foul play than a poorly-timed coincidence, he sued presidential aides Bryce Harlow and Alexander Butterfield, seeking civil damages and alleging their involvement in a conspiracy that led to his unjust termination. Both claimed summary judgment, denying any knowledge of such a conspiracy, and asserted that their actions regarding this matter were conducted in good faith. Unfortunately for the two, the district court determined that they were not eligible for immunity [1]. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concurred. Refusing to give up, however, the two continued to appeal, with their case landing before the Supreme Court, which posed the following question: Are presidential aides entitled to immunity from civil suits? Fortunately, for the two, the court voted in favor of Harlow and Alexander Butterfield, formally setting the stage for what would become a pivotal doctrine in American law: qualified immunity.
Originally intended to protect government officials from undue legal harassment, qualified immunity has evolved into a controversial shield that often deflects accountability for alleged constitutional and civil rights violations. As we navigate the intricate terrain of qualified immunity, it becomes apparent that its application has reshaped the landscape of justice in the United States, particularly when charging government officials. Through landmark cases like Saucier v. Katz [2] and Pearson v. Callahan [3], the concept of "Constitutional Determination" emerged, prompting courts to deliberate over whether a constitutional right was infringed upon and if there was an established law prohibiting the act in question. However, the subsequent overturning of Saucier v. Katz by Pearson v. Callahan ushered in a new era where sequencing became optional, giving courts the discretion to sidestep the constitutional aspect of qualified immunity. This alteration created a loophole that eroded the very accountability qualified immunity sought to maintain. Strengthening the utilization of the constitutional aspect of sequencing is essential for revitalizing qualified immunity's effectiveness. In the case of Wilson v. Layne [4], where precedent was established despite granting qualified immunity, we see the vital role that constitutional analysis plays in preventing repeated offenses and enhancing accountability. Yet, there's a counter-argument asserting that sequencing may not significantly alter court procedures and could even hinder efficiency. The cases Ruiz v. Sotelo [5] and Harper v. Poway Unified School District [6] underscore this argument, showcasing instances where qualified immunity was granted without invoking sequencing. Nevertheless, these debates compel us to confront a fundamental question: How do we strike a balance between accountability and efficiency within the American Criminal Justice System? By critically examining the evolution and implications of qualified immunity, this review endeavors to stimulate discourse and inspire innovative approaches to address the complexities inherent in safeguarding constitutional rights while ensuring judicial expediency.
The deep dive into understanding qualified immunity begins with the case that has given us the controversial precedent around it: Saucier v. Katz. The case involved the application of qualified immunity in the context of a civil rights lawsuit against law enforcement officers, with the central question being whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the claimed use of excessive force. Arising from an incident where officers forcefully arrested a suspect without a warrant, the suspect, Katz, filed a suit alleging his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated Katz's established Fourth Amendment rights [7]. However, the significance of this case stems from its establishment of a 2-step framework for analyzing and applying qualified immunity claims. The first (and most controversial) step of the framework revolves around determining whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff, if true, result in a violation of a constitutional right, also known as sequencing. If a constitutional violation is found, then courts must assess whether the right at issue was “Clearly Established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. If yes, then the officer would not be allowed to claim qualified immunity (as seen in Saucier v. Katz), and if not, then the officer would be allowed to claim qualified immunity. In addition to the 2-step process, this case also established the main purpose of qualified immunity as a method of assuring the government “avoids excessive disruption of government and permits the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment” [8].
Despite seeming like a reasonable plan, the creation of the 2-step sequencing in Saucier v. Katz was extremely unpopular in lower district courts across the nation. So much so that many courts in the country simply only went by the strict guidelines once they were done in 2009 with the case Pearson v. Callahan. Another qualified immunity and civil rights suit against officers, Pearson v. Callahan centered around the warrantless search of a home based on information they received from a confidential informant. The homeowners, the Callahans, sued the officers for violating their Fourth Amendment rights. Similar to Saucier v. Katz argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, however, instead of using their previously established two-step framework, the Supreme Court took a different route. After revisiting Saucier v. Katz, the court held that lower courts have the discretion to decide which prong of the qualified immunity analysis to address first; meaning that this departure from the mandatory sequencing allowed courts to consider whether the law was established before determining whether a constitutional violation occurred. In the end, the court ruled in favor of the officers, holding that the law regarding warrantless searches based on information from confidential informants was not established at the time of the incident; therefore, the officers could not be held liable for violating the Callahans' Fourth Amendment rights. This singular change has been enough to become the root of constitutional controversies and complexities as this increase in flexibility for lower courts has directly resulted in the supposed abuse of qualified immunity in the favor of government officials. And so, the question is this; should American courts be obligated to use the constitutional sequencing clause of Saucier v. Katz?
Constitutional articulation allows qualified immunity to be used in the way it was intended when first introduced in Saucier v. Katz; to give government officials immunity from lawsuits. Although opponents of sequencing argue that the process simply makes things repetitive, they fail to understand that at the core of the sequencing argument, is the stern belief that these additional steps added by constitutional analysis are necessary in ensuring a fair trial. In fact, it can be argued that these steps are essential for making sure that qualified immunity does not become a tool used by government officials to run from accountability. Anderson v. Creighton is a great example of this. Here the Supreme Court established the standard that officials are immune from civil liability unless their actions violated established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Although this seems alright at first glance, the lack of specificity in this decision would become its greatest weakness as courts took this idea of established constitutional rights far too literally [9]. In other words, if the right is not deliberately spelled out as a right, government officials are automatically given qualified immunity. While opponents of the argument may say that analyzing whether a violation occurred and whether a right was clearly established often involves researching is a redundant process as both simply give us the same conclusion, but it is not that simple.
The beauty and effectiveness of constitutionality are rooted in the fact that it establishes precedent. Precedent which American courts need to fairly apply qualified immunity. To see this in practice, one can look at the case of Wilson v. Layne. In this case, law enforcement brought a news reporter and a photographer along with them to apprehend a suspect in their home. Now, despite having the proper warrant to enter the man’s home, there was no legal documentation that covered the media crew’s entry resulting in the suspect suing for the violation of his 4th Amendment right. The issue, however, arose when courts realized that there was no clear law establishing that the 4th Amendment violation also applied to the use of a media crew, blurring the lines of whether qualified immunity could be properly applied. And so, when it reached the Supreme Court, the question became “whether a reasonable officer could have believed that bringing a member of the media into a home during the execution of an arrest warrant was unlawful in light of established law and the information the officers possessed” to establish the precedent for future cases [10]. By establishing this precedent, we ensure that officials can adjust their behavior to avoid future incidents. At its core, the beauty of sequencing comes from the fact that it establishes a standard precedent, which is needed for any case dealing with qualified immunity. A standard that any judge cannot misinterpret.
And if courts skip the sequencing, we create a loophole where government officials misbehave and can use qualified immunity to escape the consequences of their actions, all while still leaving the opportunity for a similar issue to arise. The creation of this loophole completely turns the purpose of qualified immunity on its head, taking it from a necessary tool needed for government officials to avoid unnecessary suits to an unlimited excuse to avoid liability. And when we fail to hold our government responsible for its actions, we only open the door for further constitutional violations at the hands of those meant to protect them.
Opponents of mandatory sequencing argue that it complicates a process already made easy by Pearson. They argue that identifying if a violation occurred and confirming the establishment of a right often necessitates examining the same legal principles, hence their evaluations are closely interconnected. Although it may appear that determining whether a right was established relies less on specific facts compared to assessing a violation, this belief is incorrect for two primary reasons. First, deciding if a right was clearly defined is inherently fact-specific, as rights like due process are widely acknowledged. The key challenge is determining whether a reasonable government official would have recognized that their actions infringed upon a known legal right, which requires knowledge of both the relevant constitutional law at the time and the specific circumstances as understood by that official.
For example, in the case of Ruiz v. Sotelo, where a prisoner alleged that prison officials had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by placing him in a cell with a known adversary, the court opted not to delve into the constitutional question. Instead, it concluded that the officials had not violated clearly established law. The court focused specifically on the interactions between the prisoner and his adversary under the watch of the prison officials while being escorted to the cell. These interactions were crucial in determining whether a reasonable official would have foreseen a risk of harm, showing the importance of a thorough examination of facts both to assess whether a right was established and to determine if a right was infringed.
In examining the intricate landscape of qualified immunity, it’s clear that this is not an easy debate to comprehend. In summary, proponents of mandatory sequencing argue that it ensures fairness, establishes a precedent, and prevents future constitutional violations by government officials; its opponents view added unnecessary complexity and repetition to legal proceedings. As the debate over qualified immunity continues, it is imperative to strike a balance between accountability and efficiency within the American criminal justice system. By critically examining the evolution and implications of qualified immunity, this review has sought to stimulate discourse and inspire innovative approaches to address the complexities inherent in safeguarding constitutional rights while ensuring judicial expediency. Ultimately, the resolution of this debate will shape the future of justice in America, influencing how government officials are held accountable for their actions and how constitutional rights are protected for all citizens. Only through careful consideration and thoughtful analysis can we navigate the complexities of qualified immunity and uphold the principles of fairness, accountability, and justice in our legal system.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Bibliography
[1] Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
[2] Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001).
[3] Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009).
[4] Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999).
[5] Ruiz v. State, No. 06-19-00190-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 9, 2020). [6] Harper v. Poway Unified School, No. 04-57037 (9th Cir. 2006). [7] Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987).
[8] id at 3
[9] id at 4
[10] id at 4
[11] id at 5
