Case law

Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

712 F. App'x 3 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 30, 2018

Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard

637 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 2011

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v. … The Supreme Court in Saucier established a two-step test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Jonathan Hedgpeth v. Ammar Rahim

893 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 2018

The court also held that Officer Rahim was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive- force claim because no clearly established law prohibited the takedown maneuver he allegedly used to effect the arrest. … Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law. See Kisela, 138 S.

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

720 F.2d 162 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 21, 1983

The test for qualified immunity is “clearly established,” not “clearly foreshadowed.” The distinction is self-evident. … that for establishing the “objective” element of the old two-pronged test for qualified immunity.

Matthew Palmieri v. United States

896 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 24, 2018

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … When an official asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must “overcome” that assertion by demonstrating (inter alia) that the right “was clearly established at the time of” the alleged violation. Fox v.

Melodi Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Board of Govenors

637 F.3d 311 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 2011

Legal Background Appellant’s motion for dismissal is rooted in the well- established doctrine of qualified immunity. … The Board asserts its qualified immunity, but we are unable to determine without an evidentiary record whether any act it committed in defense of those functions constituted a violation of clearly established rights, or even

Youngbey v. March

676 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 17, 2012

They further claim that, even if their actions are determined to be unconstitutional, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Conclusion Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because neither their no-knock entry of appellees’ home nor their nighttime search violated “clearly established law.”

National Black Police Association, Inc. v. Richard W. Velde

712 F.2d 569 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 1983

The liability standard announced in Harlow entitles appellees to qualified immunity on summary judgment unless such clear duties existed. … Prior to Harlow, summary judgment on questions of qualified immunity generally required both subjective and objective determinations.

Penthouse International, Ltd. v. Edwin A. Meese, Iii, Attorney General of the United States

939 F.2d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 24, 1991

did not violate any clearly-established First Amendment right. … If it does not — or at least if the right is not clearly established — the government’s motive is irrelevant.

Ben Kalka v. Kathleen Hawk,appellees

215 F.3d 90 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 2000

II A Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time of their actions … B To repeat, qualified immunity shields these defendants from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time of

Renay Hunter v. The District of Columbia

943 F.2d 69 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 30, 1991

clearly established at the time of the alleged beating in 1986. … Because Hunter’s complaint alleges conduct coming between Norris and Martin , his claim is subject to the officer’s substantively distinct qualified immunity defense that arises from the change in the “clearly established

Rasul v. Myers

563 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 24, 2009

immunity shields the defendants because the asserted rights were not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ detention. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability to the extent their alleged misconduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Marietta Robinson v. Sarah Pezzat

818 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 1, 2016

Seeking to avoid this result, the District urges us to affirm on an alternative ground, i.e., that Pezzat is entitled to qualified immunity because she violated no clearly established law. … In the district court, the District of Columbia argued only that Robinson suffered no constitutional injury; it never argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on clearly established law grounds.

Kimberlin, Brett C. v. Quinlan, Michael J.

207 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 28, 1999

qualified immunity issue. … to qualified immunity.

Pitt, Christopher v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Whether the right at issue in a claim of qualified immunity is clearly established . . . is a pure question of law . . . .”); Williams v. Ala. … immunity on these claims because this right was not “clearly established” at the time of the actions at issue in this case.

Harris v. District of Columbia

932 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 1991

This obligation, according to the court, was clearly established and appellants were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 17-19. … The concurrence also affords qualified immunity "on the additional ground that, even if the right was clearly established, the facts ... do not make out a violation of that right.” Concurring op. at 363.

Minpeco, S.A. v. Conticommodity Services, Inc. Nelson Bunker Hunt

844 F.2d 856 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 19, 1988

BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge: This case presents questions of congressional immunity under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. … Thus, the process by which a committee takes statements and prepares them for publication clearly qualifies as an activity “within the ‘legislative sphere.’ ” See also Browning v. Clerk, U.S.

Michael A. Kroll v. United States Capitol Police

847 F.2d 899 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Kroll did not constitute the violation of a “clearly established” right within the meaning of Harlow . … Under Harlow and its progeny, defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity raises only a narrow question.

In re Possible Violations of 18 USC 371, 641, 1503

564 F.2d 567 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 2, 1977

In particular, the Court observed *86 that official harassment of the press undertaken solely to disrupt a reporter’s relationship with news sources would clearly be subject to judicial control. 18 In a separate opinion, … A newsman can claim no general immunity, qualified or otherwise, from grand jury questioning. On the contrary, like all other witnesses, he must appear and normally must answer.

Latarsha Kelly v. Anthony Gaton

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 27, 2023

did not violate clearly established law. … On the facts of this case, Officer Gaton is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.