It's high time to #EndQualifiedImmunity. But what impact would ending qi have? Some say qi is responsible for the horrors of the past weeks, some say other barriers to accountability mean little would change. I say both are somewhat right. This thread explains why. 1/6
Ending qi would mean an end to court opinions that send the message that officers can violate peoples' rights without consequence. Ending qi would also reduce the costs, risks, and complexity of civil rights litigation, so might encourage more attorneys to bring these cases. 2/6
But qi isn't the silver bullet some hope. Without qualified immunity, government indemnification, budgeting, and risk-management practices, and the many other drivers of government behavior would continue to minimize lawsuits’ deterrent effects. 3/6
And ending qi wouldn't dramatically shift the frequency with which plaintiffs win b/c it is one of many barriers to relief. Today, most civil rights cases fail for reasons other than qualified immunity. Without qi, cases would continue to fail for these other reasons. 4/6
These other barriers to relief mean doomsday scenarios about ending qi - courthouses flooded with frivolous claims—would not come to pass. And constitutional litigation
would often still fail to hold government officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly. 5/6
would often still fail to hold government officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly. 5/6
Although ending qi wouldn't fundamentally shift dynamics that make it difficult for plaintiffs to redress constitutional violations and deter government wrongdoing, it is still important and worth doing. If you want to read more: columbialawreview.org/content/after-…. end 
