Judge Willett Concurrence Highlights Qualified Immunity ’s Flawed Foundation

Jay SchweikertJudge Don Willett of the Fifth Circuit has long been one of the foremost judicial critics of qualified immunity and a leading voice urging the Supreme Court to reconsider thisunjust and unlawful doctrine. In 2018, he wrote a separate opinion“concurring dubitante” in a decision granting immunity to register his concern with “the kudzu‐​like creep of the modern immunity regime” and explaining how the doctrine “smacks of unqualified impunity, letting public officials duck consequences for bad behavior—no matter how palpably unreasonable—as long as they were thefirst to behave badly. ”Over the last few years, Judge Willett has writtenseveraladditionalopinions elaborating on various concerns with the doctrine, both in terms of its underlying justifications and practical application. And last week, in a case calledRogers v. Jarrett, he added to this judicial anthology, with a concurring opinion highlighting Professor Alex Reinert ’srecent scholarship, which explains how the legal justifications for qualified immunity are even weaker than previously believed.On the merits,Rogers isn ’t the most remarkable qualified immunity decision. The case involves a prison inmate, Kevion Rogers, who was working unsupervised in a hog barn when the ceiling collapsed on him. He told several prison staffers that he needed medical attention, but they told him his injuries didn ’t look serious enough. Shortly thereafter, he bla...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs