Case law

Aleotti v. Baars

896 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 1995

Sergeant Hickey and Captain Hennessey are shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … Federal officials, such as Special Agent Trainor, are entitled to qualified immunity for civil damage claims for constitutional and statutory violations asserted against them unless their conduct violates "clearly established

Qutb v. Ramsey

285 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 2003

Therefore, unless the law “put[s] the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly be unlawful,” summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. … ” to put officers on notice for qualified immunity purposes.

Wilkins v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2020

Qualified Immunity Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … Because Defendants’ take down of Plaintiff did not violate clearly established law, Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity.

Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell

87 F. Supp. 3d 127 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2015

of the complaint seeks an order directing the Secretary to conduct an election pursuant to the IRA, Congress has clearly waived the United States’ sovereign immunity with respect to this suit. … Consequently, subsection (d)(2) is, at most, ambiguous as far as the defense of sovereign immunity is concerned, and that section therefore fails to qualify as the type of unequivocal and explicit waiver of sovereign immunity

McGovern v. Martz

182 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 1960

While it appears that the common law immunity was limited to conduct that had some relation to the business of the legislature, 9 Cochran v. Couzens, 10 clearly teaches that Article 1, § 6, cl. 1, knows no such bounds. … Van Vechten Veeder, “Absolute Immunity in Defamation: Legislative and Executive Proceedings,” 10 Col.L.Rev. 131, 132 (1910); Yankwich, “The Immunity of Congressional Speech—Its Origin, Meaning and Scope”, 99 U.Penn.L.Rev.

Fischer v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2025

Instead, those claims must overcome qualified immunity, which protects officials from civil liability unless their actions “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Richardson v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2018

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. … As the Court explained, Smith himself is protected from this allegation by qualified immunity—no clearly established law required him to institute such policies.

Local 1812, American Federation of Government Employees v. United States Department of State

662 F. Supp. 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 1987

This case arises from the Department of State’s recent decision to expand its employee medical fitness program for all Foreign Service employees seeking to qualify or who have qualified for worldwide service abroad, by including … It does not appear from the present record that HIV-infected persons are “otherwise qualified” for worldwide Foreign Service duty.

Boatwright v. Jacks

239 F. Supp. 3d 229 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2017

In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish the individual defendants “knew or should have known that the action [they] took within [their] sphere … As a result, to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts that establish the individuals as “plainly incompetent” or “knowingly violating] the law.”

Singleton v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2022

, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Clark v. District of Columbia

241 F. Supp. 3d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … Defendants argue that Defendant Manley is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim because Plaintiff failed to plead that Defendant Manley violated a “clearly established” right at the time of

Rivera v. Holder

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2009

"[Q]ualified immunity protects officials from liability 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … A qualified immunity analysis requires that the Court consider "whether the alleged facts show that the individual's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right, and . . . whether that right was clearly established

Donohoe v. Watt

546 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 1982

When violations of constitutional rights are alleged, however, the immunity of executive branch officers is qualified. It exists only to the extent the official acted reasonably and in good faith. Butz v. … The second consideration is an “objective” inquiry into the extent to which the official knew or reasonably should have known that his conduct would violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Lash v. Lemke

971 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2013

Those entitled to qualified immunity have "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (internal quotation omitted). … Accordingly, to defeat a government official's claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both (1) that the facts alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly

Mpoy v. Fenty

901 F. Supp. 2d 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2012

Alternatively, they argue that even if the speech were protected, Plaintiff’s claim would nonetheless be barred by qualified immunity because his constitutional right to such speech was not clearly established at the time … so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Johnson v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 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. … clearly established law to be followed in 2002.

Ford v. Donovan

843 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2012

Although not entitled to absolute immunity, the DCHA Defendants are not without defenses. The doctrine of qualified immunity is still available. … In order to receive qualified immunity, the public official must show that his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Barney v. Suggs

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2022

Qualified immunity applies unless Burney can show that the officers (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Plumhoff v. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless Burney can show that they (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Farmer v. Hawk

991 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 1998

When an official raises a qualified immunity defense, the “plaintiff can prevail only by showing not just that there was a violation, but that defendant’s acts violated ‘.clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … which was “clearly established” and “of which a reasonable person would have known” in order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity.

Virginians Against a Corrupt Congress v. Moran

805 F. Supp. 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 1992

The defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. There was no clearly established constitutional right violated by defendant at the time of the disputed actions. Harlow v. … Reading the qualified immunity doctrine in light of the Speech or Debate clause, and the political environment in which this case was brought, I also hold that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from responding to