Case law

Zuza v. Office of the High Representative

857 F.3d 935 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 30, 2017

The United States responded that Ashdown and Inzko had been notified to and accepted by the Secretary of State (Secretary) and thus qualified for immunity. … It entitles qualifying officers and employees to immunity not only from “suit” but also from “legal process.” 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b). Legal process is an expansive term.

Andrews v. Wilkins

934 F.2d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 1991

Qualified immunity is available to federal and state officials charged with constitutional torts so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, the claimants made out a valid claim for a constitutional tort, against which the Deputy lacked qualified immunity.

Carlos Loumiet v. United States

948 F.3d 376 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 28, 2020

And it denied those officials qualified immunity on the ground that the “First Amendment right to be free from retaliatory prosecution” was clearly established long before 2006. Id. at 93 (quotation marks omitted). … We begin with the cause-of- action question, which is antecedent to the question of qualified immunity.

Barroca v. Hurwitz

342 F. Supp. 3d 178 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 28, 2018

Qualified Immunity The Defendants also move to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. Defs.' Mem at 18-24. … This immunity is applicable when the challenged "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 2011

Finally, the district court held that qualified immunity protected the defendants from the Bivens claims because, even if the plaintiffs possess constitutional rights, “those rights were not clearly established at the time … Furthermore, we concluded the defendants were protected by qualified immunity because, even assuming arguendo the detainees possessed rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, those rights were not clearly established

Bertram Zweibon v. John N. Mitchell, Individually and as Attorney General of the United States

606 F.2d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 1979

In this case, *1181 however, where there was no “avulsive” change of law, the qualified immunity available to appellees ensures that no such inequitable result can occur. As we state today in Halperin v. … Our disagreement with that court focuses on two points: (1) We do not think that the rule of Keith was not clearly foreshadowed, and (2) we believe that because qualified immunity protects potential defendants acting in good

Francis X. McLaughlin v. Miles F. Alban, Jr.

775 F.2d 389 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), now applies for qualified immunity of offi- *392 ciáis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . See McSurely v. McClellan, 697 F.2d 309, 316 (D.C.Cir.1982). … These are the very “bare allegations of malice” that the qualified immunity standard of Harlow is designed to forestall. 457 U.S. at 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. at 2737-38 .

Margaret T. Whitacre v. James F. Davey

890 F.2d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 17, 1989

The qualified immunity test originally consisted of both objective and subjective elements. … insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Morton Halperin v. Henry Kissinger Morton Halperin v. Henry Kissinger, Richard M. Nixon, John N. Mitchell, and H. R. Haldeman

606 F.2d 1192 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 1979

The defendants claim absolute immunity from this action and dispute the District Court’s refusal to bar the suit on qualified immunity grounds. … objective basis for qualified immunity.

U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Data SEC. Breach Litig. v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.

928 F.3d 42 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 2019

Tex. 2013) (because “[n]o sovereign immunity has been established,” the court “therefore concludes that there is no governmental immunity from which an immunity may be derived for the benefit of” the contractor), aff’d sub … employed by the government would have only qualified immunity, while a private contractor who works in the prison but is no more than a common law agent would have absolute immunity”).

Lutcher S. A. Celulose E Papel and F. Lutcher Brown v. Inter-American Development Bank

382 F.2d 454 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 13, 1967

In 1960 President Eisenhower issued, as we noted, his Executive Order qualifying the Bank for immunities available under the terms of the International Organizations Immunities Act. … The Eisenhower Order qualified the Bank “as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exceptions, and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act.”

Cause of Action Inst. v. Internal Revenue Serv.

390 F. Supp. 3d 84 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2019

Courts Have Viewed Similar FOIA Disputes-i.e., Those Pertaining To Whether The Defendant Entity Qualifies As An "Agency"-As Properly Resolved Under Rule 12(b)(6) Rather Than Rule 12(b)(1) It is the well-established statutory … Of course, this void is not surprising, as it is well established that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to valid FOIA claims. See Hajro v. U.S.

Phillips v. Spencer

390 F. Supp. 3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 15, 2019

Bosworth violated Plaintiffs' "clearly established rights"; therefore, both government employees are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Pls.' Opp'n, ECF No. 101 at 31-32. … "The proponent of [the] purported right has the 'burden to show that the particular right in question ... was clearly established' for qualified-immunity purposes." Daugherty , 891 F.3d at 390 (quoting Dukore v.

Lyles v. U.S. Marshalls Serv.

301 F. Supp. 3d 32 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 18, 2018

The Court undertakes a two-part analysis when considering a qualified immunity defense. … It must determine whether the government official violated (i) a clearly established constitutional right that (ii) was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Saucier v.

John Does 1-7 v. Taliban

101 F.4th 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 26, 2024

must “establish both that the foreign state is not immune from suit and that the property to be attached or executed against is not immune” from execution. … The cross-reference textually confirms that, while Section 201(a) of the TRIA applies to foreign states that qualify as “terrorist part[ies]” under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, it does so only when those foreign states already have

Unification Church v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

762 F.2d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 1985

We are here presented with an organization that clearly fits within subsection (ii) but does not clearly fall under subsection (iii). … The statutory language of this provision, which differs from subsection (d), clearly requires that an organization meet both the net-worth and the employee limits to qualify for fees.

Smith v. Dist. of Columbia

306 F. Supp. 3d 223 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 30, 2018

Qualified immunity protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Because this is the sort of behavior that qualified immunity is meant to protect, the Court concludes that Jones is entitled to qualified immunity. 2. Jeanette Myrick is entitled to qualified immunity.

Chen v. District of Columbia

256 F.R.D. 267 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 2009

Nor may the Court conclude that Officer Ha is entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. … that a plaintiff anticipate the assertion of qualified immunity ... and plead allegations that will defeat that immunity” — at least in those cases where “the existence of qualified immunity will depend on the particular

Richardson v. Sauls

319 F. Supp. 3d 52 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 18, 2018

Smith is protected by qualified immunity because no constitutional violations occurred, much less any "clearly established" violation of Mr. Richardson's constitutional rights. Id. at 20 . … Smith do not plausibly allege any constitutional violation of a right that was "clearly established." Mr. Smith is entitled to qualified immunity. Count Eleven of Mr.

Secretary of Labor v. Industrial TurnAround Corporation

138 F.4th 1339 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 3, 2025

Unlike a denial of qualified immunity — for which collateral review is “essential” because “the nub of qualified immunity is the need  10 to induce officials to show reasonable initiative when … the relevant law is not clearly established” — the interest affected by the district court’s decision was “the avoidance of litigation for its own sake[.]”