 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| The Supreme Court has weighed in on qualified immunity again. This time, it is for making the destructive policy stronger, unlike last year when the justices appeared to be backing away. |
| It's a key issue in the national conversation on police reform. It's the topic of an ongoing series at USA TODAY Opinion, an issue in political campaigns, fodder for state lawmakers and an item on numerous court dockets. |
| Here's a look at some of the latest headlines. |
The latest from USA TODAY |
| |
| By Leslie Herod and Mari Newman |
| The Colorado state legislator and a local civil rights attorney wrote about how their state was able to change laws on qualified immunity with a bipartisan consensus: |
| "We spent months in late 2019 and early 2020 brainstorming and drafting legislation, but there was simply no political appetite for reform at the Colorado Capitol. Indeed, an earlier bill seeking to eliminate qualified immunity had gone nowhere. Everything shifted on May 25, 2020, when Minneapolis police killed George Floyd. The video of his murder made undeniable what people of color have always known," they wrote. |
| |
| By Joanna Schwartz |
| The law professor reacted to Supreme Court decisions that made qualified immunity even more protective of rogue police, writing, "Police officers aren't actually educated about the facts and holdings of cases that 'clearly establish' the law, so it makes no sense that victims of police misconduct are denied relief unless and until they can find them." |
| |
| By Sarah Gelsomino |
| The Cleveland lawyer told the story of how Luke Stewart, a 23-year-old Black man, was asleep in his parked car and awakened by police only to be killed moments later after being shot five times. "This defies common sense and undermines constitutional rights for all people. Any reasonable, safe and professional police officer should know the Constitution doesn't permit police to see a person who isn't committing a crime, open their car doors, jump into the vehicle, beat them and kill them. But Luke's case was tossed out of federal court because that same situation had not previously been considered in court – so Luke's constitutional rights in that situation were not clearly established in the eyes of the court," she wrote. |
| USA TODAY Opinion series: Faces, victims, issues and debates surrounding qualified immunity |
Opinion elsewhere |
| • | In The New York Times: The Supreme Court has abandoned its role in regulating police behavior and now legislators will have to clean up the mess. | | • | In Slate: The Supreme Court can't get its story straight: Should we restrict police immunity or should we expand it? | | • | In Reason: Cops don't read court opinions. What the hell is the Supreme Court even talking about. | | • | In National Review: Republican Sen Tom Cotton writes a defense of qualified immunity, saying it's needed for good policing. | | • | In Forbes: A rebuttal to Sen. Cotton's argument, calling it "spectacularly inaccurate" and "bewildering." | | • | In The Washington Post: Federal restrictions on police were born in the years after the Civil War. The Supreme Court invented qualified immunity to thwart those anti-racist policies. | |
In the news |
| In Massachusetts: The battle over qualified immunity protections continues at the state level despite the Supreme Court rulings |
| This is part of a series by the USA TODAY Opinion team examining the issue of qualified immunity. The project is made possible in part by a grant from Stand Together. Stand Together does not provide editorial input. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment