Case law

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.

Driever v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2020

Qualified immunity protects officials from suits unless their actions are (1) plainly incompetent, or (2) committed with knowledge of violation of clearly established law. See Malley v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227 (2009) (finding that officials were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional).

Millet v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2025

Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62–63 (2018) (“[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 … As noted, “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 at the time.’”

Langford v. Johnson

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 2020

Defendants contend that plaintiff has pled no facts to support a § 1983 claim and that they “are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.” Defs.’ Mot. at 1. … It concludes nonetheless that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity since the allegations fail to show their violation of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Harlow v.

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.

Pretzman v. Mayorkas

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2024

“The United States is generally immune from suit unless there is explicit statutory waiver of its sover- eign immunity.” Lewis v. D.C. Police Dep’t, 271 F. … Supp. 3d 18, 23 (D.D.C. 2022) (“The Privacy Act provides a waiver of sovereign immunity, but the waiver is limited in scope: the Act only waives sovereign immunity for ‘actual damages.’ . . .

Elkins v. District of Columbia

527 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided that the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, a court must make a two-fold inquiry.

Zhi Chen v. District of Columbia

808 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2011

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (holding that qualified immunity turns upon the “objective legal reasonableness of the officers’ action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly

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.

Sherrod v. McHugh

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2018

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 … established, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Tabb v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2009

immunity. … that right was clearly established — in either order).

Carter v. United States

684 A.2d 331 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1996

to the crucial defense witness involved who is shown to be the only witness who, if believed, would clearly establish a reasonable doubt on the defendant’s guilt. … If immunity of the crucial defense witness is then sought, the defendant must first establish to the trial court’s satisfaction that the proposed testimony is (a) material, (b) clearly exculpatory, (c) non-cumulative, and

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.

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.

Jones v. Yanta

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, "[ a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Scales v. District of Columbia

973 A.2d 722 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2009

, ultimately holding that he was entitled to immunity because the allegations, taken as true, had “fail[ed] to establish that under the particular circumstances here [Officer] Young violated his clearly established Fomth … if the right was not clearly established at the time, the officer may still enjoy its protection.

Young v. Scales

873 A.2d 337 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2005

that a defendant had qualified immunity. … Thus, to overcome qualified immunity, the right allegedly violated “must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that

District of Columbia v. Evans

644 A.2d 1008 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1994

1988 liability, an officer’s acts must clearly violate a clearly established right. … Deliberately shooting someone without just cause clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, and thus would preclude qualified immunity from § 1983 liability.

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.

Sabir v. District of Columbia

755 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2000

Absent violation of “a clearly established right,”a police officer will not be subject to § 1983 liability. Id. at 1015. As the D.C. Circuit articulated the standard in Wardlaw v. … Generally, the review of a deniál of qualified immunity is a question of law — “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” Mitchell v.