One of this morning's more consequential Supreme Court decisions was South Dakota v. Wayfair, where the Supreme Court overruled its 51-ye...
- SSRN Id:
- Most Recent Tweet View All Tweets
- Most Recent Blog Mention
- Most Recent News Mention
In October 2013, two investigators from the Texas Medical Board arrived at Dr. Joseph Zadeh’s medical practice in suburban Dallas with an...
In Ziglar v. Abbasi, Justice Clarence Thomas recommended to the Court that, “[i]n an appropriate case, we should reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence.” If the Supreme Court did find an appropriate case to reconsider qualified immunity, and took seriously available evidence about qualified immunity’s historical precedents and current operation, it could not justify continued existence of the doctrine in its current form. Qualified immunity is historically unmoored, ineffective at achieving its policy ends, and detrimental to the development of constitutional law. Scholarly defenses of the doctrine are similarly unpersuasive. The Court should not feel constrained by stare decisis, given the questionable foundations of qualified immunity and the liberty the Court has taken with its scope and structure over the fifty years of its existence. And there are many ways, short of downright repeal, that the Court could adjust the doctrine to better reflect its role in constitutional litigation. The Supreme Court has created the mess that is qualified immunity, and it is time for them to clean it up.