Thread by @Robyn_NSanders

In a 62-page scorcher, J. Reeves methodically incinerates qualified immunity (QI) as having "no basis in law" & being an "extra-constitutional affront." This opinion could finally spell the end for the doctrine. REQUIRED READING for all who yearn for accountability & justice. 🧵

Here, , J. Reeves denies dismissal in a case where a Black man lost nearly 2 years m of his life awaiting trial in an "inhumane" detention center, due to a false murder accusation based solely on the discredited testimony of a drug-impaired informant.s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2467…

What’s more, the detective in the case ignored exonerating evidence & manipulated a lineup. Mr. Green sued Detective Thomas, along with other defendants, under § 1983 for violating his civil rights. Detective Thomas filed a motion to dismiss based on QI.

J. Reeves traces QI’s origins, explaining the doctrine was invented in the 1960s despite not appearing in the text of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which was passed by Congress to explicitly remedy white supremacist violence targeting Black Americans in the Reconstruction South.

Since being invented, SCOTUS has continued to stretch the protections of qualified immunity even further. The opinion notes that the Court has expanded what plaintiffs must show to overcome immunity, from demonstrating a "consensus of cases" to requiring near identical precedent.

J. Reeves argues the expanding, judicially-invented QI doctrine closes the courthouse doors to victims of even the grossest forms of unconstitutional state action & obstructs proper democratic participation in deciding civil rights issues.

Critically, J. Reeves emphasizes that QI "disproportionately bars justice for Black victims of government misconduct." The opinion is loaded with powerful footnotes documenting *extensive* research showing QI's egregious racially discriminatory impact.

Beyond denying victims their sole means of uncovering truth & evidence of/a remedy for lawlessness, J. Reeves notes research shows QI fails on its own terms, not deterring misconduct or reducing costs as claimed, merely shielding misconduct. See “Shielded” by @JCSchwartzProf.

QI, as J. Reeves sees it, has devolved into a game for judges—not a framework for rights or conduct guidance. It reduces the Constitution to judges quibbling over “clearly established” nitpickery while callously denying victims their day in court.

QI also ties the hands of jurors who are best positioned to weigh facts. J. Reeves emphasizes that a policy requiring legislative reform ignores that judges alone created this distortion of civil rights law.These problems trace to QI’s lack of Constitutional/statutory foundation.

In allowing Mr. Green’s claim to proceed, J. Reeves ultimately invites SCOTUS to reexamine and throttle QI once & for all— a legally infirm, practically failed, & racially unjust doctrine long overdue for reform.

Overall, J. Reeves whips up a scathing 5-course QI tartare in this opinion. He picks apart every justification and shreds every assumption, seasoning the critique with history & leaving no doctrinal stone unturned.

This jurisprudential feast is so thoroughly cooked that higher courts will have no choice bury QI for good. Only the judiciary can remedy a doctrines of its own making at odds with law and democracy. It’s past time.

This decision is a landmark in both constitutional analysis and potential civil rights impact. I believe litigant and courts will be parsing this decision for years as the fate of QI is reconsidered.