Case law

Carlos Loumiet v. United States

828 F.3d 935 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 2016

Contending that the exception should at least immunize governmental policy discretion that is not clearly unconstitutional, the government adverts to the qualified- immunity doctrine of Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982), under which a constitutional tort plaintiff seeking to defeat an individual official’s qualified-immunity defense must show that the claimed constitutional rights were “clearly established

Harbury v. Deutch

233 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 12, 2000

immunity because the scope of the alleged right was not clearly established. … For purposes of qualified immunity, it is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that a defendant’s conduct violated a right that is clearly established in general terms.

Wayne Chastain v. Don Sundquist

833 F.2d 311 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 6, 1987

For most executive officials, the immunity from all suits alleging constitutional and statutory violations is limited to a qualified defense whereby officials are held answerable only if they violate “clearly established” … makes clear, the violations giving rise to liability may or may not be clearly established.

Sherrod v. McHugh

334 F. Supp. 3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 25, 2018

As noted above, where, as here, a defendant official claims qualified immunity, the Court must determine (1) whether the official "violated a statutory or constitutional right," and (2) whether "the right was clearly established … Accordingly, Detective McHugh is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because the stop did not violate the Sherrods' constitutional rights or, at the very least, it was not clearly established that a stop of this

Gray, William T. v. Poole, Theisha

275 F.3d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 8, 2002

Under this form of immunity, government officials are not subject to damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … These functions are subject to qualified, not abso- lute, immunity. In Malley v.

Briggs v. Goodwin

569 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 21, 1977

An isolated and clearly incorrect footnote in S & S Logging Co. v. … Because issuance of the arrest warrant was clearly within his general powers under state law, the Justice of the Peace in Duba was found absolutely immune from civil suit.

LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova

985 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 2021

In 1976, the Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Under the FSIA, foreign governments are generally immune from the jurisdiction of federal and state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1604. … The FSIA’s arbitration exception therefore applies and we reject Moldova’s immunity claim.

Simons v. Bellinger

643 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 4, 1980

Goodwin, supra, is subject to a qualified immunity. … Under a qualified immunity, the “good faith” of the defendant Committee members would clearly be a material fact in dispute and we would have to reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Smith v. Nixon

807 F.2d 197 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

In Halperin II, 807 F.2d at 188, we held that objective reasonableness of national security motivation is all that need be established to sustain that element of the qualified immunity defense consisting of the contention … There is no dispute that the challenged wiretap was illegal (albeit not in violation of clearly established law). See United States v.

Broudy, Alice P. v. Mather, Susan H.

460 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 23, 2006

Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200 (1985)), and qualified immunity because the plaintiffs had failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, id. at 11-13. … 17 alone a “clearly established” constitutional right.

John Doe v. Donald Rumsfeld

683 F.3d 390 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 15, 2012

This case fits squarely within a well-established exception that the denial of a motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity has sufficient finality to warrant interlocutory review, and within the language of Hartman … Qualified immunity protects public officials personally sued for damages “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Liff v. Office of Inspector General for U.S. Department of Labor

881 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 6, 2018

- immunity grounds, arguing that they had violated no clearly established constitutional right. … They also asserted a qualified- immunity defense, contending that the alleged actions violated no clearly established constitutional right.

Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enterprises, Inc., a Corporation, Norman Scott v. Smithsonian Institution

566 F.2d 289 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 16, 1977

The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” Imbler v. … or qualified immunity.

A. Eugene Ramey v. Charles Bowsher, Comptroller of the United States

915 F.2d 731 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 5, 1990

Earl Wysong, a former employee at the GAO, to establish that his eoworker, Ms. Drake, should not have been promoted because she was not qualified for the GS-14 position. … The record also supports the District Court’s view that Drake was not only qualified for the position, but probably even better qualified than Ramey.

Harrison v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

298 F. Supp. 3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 28, 2018

The Court next turns to the individual defendants' qualified immunity argument. … Courts considering the question more recently have similarly held that this right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

William Moore, Jr. v. Michael Hartman

704 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 2013

There, in examining whether the law governing retaliatory arrest claims was clearly established in the Tenth Circuit in 2006, the Court expressly declined to decide whether the absence-of-probable-cause requirement identified … Because it was uncertain whether the Tenth Circuit’s retaliatory arrest law remained clearly established, the defendants in Reichle were entitled to qualified immunity.

Wye Oak Technology, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq

24 F.4th 686 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 4, 2022

Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 318 (1986)), a foreign state “will not be found to have [explicitly] waived its immunity unless it has clearly and unambiguously done so[,]” id. … Indeed, an established treatise that Wye Oak relies on specifically states that “the [commercial activities] exception’s second clause provides for jurisdiction where a defendant qualifying as a ‘foreign state’ under the

John Sinclair, Lawrence "Pun" Plamondon, John Waterhouse Forrest v. Richard G. Kleindienst

645 F.2d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 9, 1981

On April 30, 1975, the court granted the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity. … The objective branch of the qualified immunity test asks only whether the official violated clearly established, authoritatively declared law. See Procunier v.

Kartseva v. Department of State

37 F.3d 1524 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 28, 1994

Because we remand the constitutional quéstion, we do not now decide whether the Bivens claims can survive a claim of qualified immunity. 21 In the event, however, that the district court finds the existence of a clearly established … ] motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds can be resolved.”

Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization v. William E. Simon, Secretary of the Treasury

506 F.2d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 6, 1974

Long established Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) policy held that hospitals qualified as charitable organizations under 501(c)(3) only if they provided free or below cost service to those unable to pay. … That sovereign immunity does not serve as a bar to the present action is further established by this court’s position that the Administrative Procedure Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity.