Case law

Public Citizen, Inc. v. Department of Justice and National Archives and Records Administration

111 F.3d 168 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 22, 1997

The Presidential Records Act establishes an elaborate structure for the management of Presidential records. The United States retains ownership, possession and control. 44 U.S.C. § 2202 (1994). … The former President clearly qualifies as an expert on the implications of disclosure of Presidential records from his administration.

Ryan Lash v. Jennifer Lemke

786 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 2015

A Because the officers’ conduct here did not violate any clearly established law, they have qualified immunity against Lash’s Fourth Amendment claim. 2 Qualified immunity exists to protect officers “from undue interference … An official who asserts a qualified immunity defense can only be held liable if the plaintiff suing him establishes that the official “violated a constitutional right” that “was clearly established” at the time.

International Action Center v. United States

365 F.3d 20 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 2004

eliminated, so long as the plaintiff has alleged (with or without evidence to back it up) violation of one ‘clearly established’ right.” … Merits 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

Kimberlin v. Quinlan

199 F.3d 496 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 28, 1999

The judgment on the clearly established law, however, is not fully dispositive of the issues raised by appellants’ renewed motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. … was clearly established.”

Michael Fenwick v. United States

778 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 13, 2015

Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the deputies violated no clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. *135 I. … Fenwick’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Id. at 225. On appeal, the deputies challenge the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment, renewing their assertion of qualified immunity.

Turpin v. Ray

319 F. Supp. 3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 2018

"clearly established" under the circumstances. … Callahan , Officers Rowley and Strange may still claim qualified immunity as long as the alleged violation was not clearly established at the time. Brown v. Fogle , 819 F.Supp.2d 23 , 28-29 (D.D.C. 2011).

Barham, Jeffrey v. Ramsey, Charles H.

434 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 13, 2006

established constitutional rights, thus stripping appellants of any qualified immunity. … Assistant Chief Newsham’s Claim to Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Bamdad v. Drug Enforcement Administration

617 F. App'x 7 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 22, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit for damages unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we need not decide whether it was in fact violated, because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.

Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia

794 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

Officer Boyd moved for judgment on the pleadings for Count 1, arguing that he is protected by qualified immunity. The district court explained, to overcome Officer Boyd’s claim to qualified immunity, Mrs. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers “from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

567 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 2009

matter how unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … to determine whether it presents one of those occasions in which the rights are clearly established.

Jesse Redmond v. Isaac Fulwood, Jr.

859 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from suits for money damages unless a plaintiff shows both that (i) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (ii) that right was “clearly established … Fourth, Fulwood is entitled to qualified immunity for Redmond’s allegation of bias arising from the nature of his crime because there is no clearly established right for parole- eligible prisoners to be treated equally in

Martin v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

812 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 10, 1987

(footnotes omitted); Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law). … The “clearly established law” and “objective reasonableness” facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the “clearly established law” itself contains a subjective component.

Michael J. Daugherty & Labmd, Inc. v. Sheer

891 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 1, 2018

“Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation?” … The proponent of a purported right has the “burden to show that the particular right in question . . . was clearly established” for qualified-immunity purposes. Dukore v. Dist. of Columbia, 799 F.3d 1137, 1145 (D.C.

Goolsby v. Dist. of Columbia

317 F. Supp. 3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 13, 2018

The Court will once more exercise its discretion to begin with the second prong of the qualified immunity test: whether any constitutional violation here was clearly established. … False Arrest Beginning with the false arrest claims, the Court will again start with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether any violation by the Dispatchers was clearly established.

Morton H. Halperin v. Henry A. Kissinger

807 F.2d 180 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

The District Court granted summary judgment to . defendants on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that the wiretap did not violate clearly established law since it had a rational nexus to national security. … We must determine whether the claims based on these requirements are subject to the qualified immunity defense. As to the warrant requirement, the answer is plain, since it was not yet clearly established.

Frederick A. Siegert, ph.d. v. H. Melvyn Gilley, ph.d.

895 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 1990

The court concluded that “[Gil-ley’s] qualified immunity defense therefore fails,” id., and that Siegert had established a proper basis for a Bivens claim. Id. at 1419. Defendant then filed this appeal. … Instead, to overcome the qualified immunity that ordinarily attaches to government officials performing discretionary functions, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Moore, William v. Hartman, Michael

388 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 9, 2004

TATEL, Circuit Judge: Qualified immunity generally shields public officials from civil damages ‘‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, Moore has alleged the violation of a constitutional right, precluding summary judgment under the first element of the qualified immunity test. Was the Law Clearly Established?

Farmer, Dee v. Moritsugu, Kenneth

163 F.3d 610 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 18, 1998

Analysis A.Qualified Immunity Principles It is well-established that qualified immunity shields gov- ernment officials from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Moritsugu is protected by qualified immunity unless Farm- er's allegations could sustain a finding that his conduct violat- ed clearly established law. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Jean-Gabriel Bernier v. Jeff Allen

38 F.4th 1145 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 5, 2022

Allen’s decision violated no clearly established Eighth Amendment right, we hold that the doctor is entitled to qualified immunity from Bernier’s damages claim. … Nevertheless, the majority rests its conclusion on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.

Antoine Jones v. Steve Kirchner

835 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 26, 2016

Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation? … Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, albeit for a different reason: It was not clearly established in Maryland in 2005 that the Fourth Amendment prohibits