Oklahoma resident Donald Logsdon was fixing his neighbor’s generator in March 2020 when three deputy United States Marshals snuck up behind him, kicked him in the head and took turns stomping on his body while he was unconscious. The excessive force was a clear-cut constitutional violation, but when Logsdon tried to vindicate his rights in court, a federal judge decided he had no business being there.
Logsdon’s situation isn’t an anomaly. Due to myriad different, often overlapping immunity doctrines, government officials are overwhelmingly insulated from the consequences of their actions, no matter how egregious. The result? People are left with virtually no recourse when their rights are violated, and the Constitution becomes little more than an empty promise.
As Chief Justice John Marshall observed over 200 years ago, the “very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury,” and a government cannot be called a “government of laws, and not of men … if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.”
Yet far too often, people find themselves in that exact position. Logsdon had a warrant for his arrest on the day federal agents attacked him — though that doesn’t excuse their behavior. But James King, an innocent college student from Michigan, did nothing except walk on a public sidewalk in broad daylight when members of a law enforcement task force misidentified and brutally beat him. Both Logsdon and King ended up hospitalized.
This is just a snippet of the abuse that government officials routinely get away with.
Want to sue the agency responsible for a constitutional violation? Sorry, the government gets sovereign immunity. How about the officer that actually committed the violation? Qualified immunity.
Did a self-interested prosecutor slap you with a baseless charge? Prosecutorial immunity. Did a corrupt judge violate your right to due process — perhaps by initiating an impromptu raid on your home and ordering the theft of your possessions? Judicial immunity. Would you like to bring a constitutional lawsuit against a federal official (often referred to as a Bivens suit)? De facto absolute immunity.
From unjustified traffic stops and warrantless mail seizures to retaliatory arrests and the actual destruction of people’s homes, government officials consistently try to get away with appalling human rights violations.
Even where Congress has explicitly authorized constitutional claims, like it did for suits against municipalities, badly decided court cases have made it nearly impossible for people to actually exercise those rights. In one particularly devastating example, New York prosecutors brought bogus patient endangerment charges against a group of innocent, immigrant nurses who had been subject to indentured servitude, threatening their livelihoods, all without consequence.
From unjustified traffic stops and warrantless mail seizures to retaliatory arrests and the actual destruction of people’s homes, government officials consistently try to get away with appalling human rights violations. Most of the time, they succeed.
The trouble is, the courts have created a problem that builds upon itself. Because of doctrines like qualified immunity, law enforcement officers can only be held accountable if there is a prior case with facts directly on point that clearly establish a constitutional violation. So how similar do the facts need to be?
Well, in 2019, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an officer who sicced a dog on suspect who had already surrendered should be granted qualified immunity because in the previous case, the suspect surrendered by lying “on the ground with his hands out to his side” rather than by raising his hands. “[T]he fit is not perfect,” the judges held. In another case, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that a prison guard who pepper-sprayed an incarcerated person “for no reason” should be granted immunity because a guard in a previous case who had been granted immunity used a Taser rather than pepper spray. Thus, the constitutional violation with specific regard to pepper spray hadn’t been “clearly established.”
Because courts tend to decide whether immunity applies before weighing in on the constitutional violation — thus never actually reaching the merits of the claim — we don’t get the buildup of decisions necessary to establish future liability. Instead, we get a merry-go-round of constitutional violations and lack of accountability without any way to get off the ride.
The end of all of this is a system where citizens spend years in court trying to vindicate their rights only to have their cases thrown out because apparently “ignorance of the law” is only an excuse for those charged with enforcing it. In such a system, the Bill of Rights becomes little more than words on a piece of paper. That is not the system our founders created, and it is not the system we should be dealing with today.
The Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm where I work, has responded with a Project on Immunity and Accountability. Besides filing a friend-of-the court brief in the Logsdon case, we have launched multiple challenges to all types of immunity doctrines. The idea is simple: If we the people must follow the law, the government must follow the Constitution.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment. We’re presently working to find 1500 new monthly donors to Truthout before the end of the year.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy