Case law

Carmer v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2025

As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether a constitutional mandate must be “clearly established”—similar to principles undergirding the qualified immunity doctrine—to render the discretionary function exception … See Def.’s Mem. at 32 n.21 (advocating for the more stringent “clearly established” standard); Pl.’s Opp’n at 12 (contending that the “clearly established” standard as applied in the discretionary-function context “has

Dormu v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2011

If no constitutional right was violated, qualified immunity is appropriate. Id. … Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the officers would nonetheless be immune from suit if Dormu’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

Davis v. Transportation Security Administration

264 F. Supp. 3d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2017

Plaintiff simply made no effort to respond to either of Defendants’ immunity arguments. WMATA argued that it was immune from suit under the WMATA Compact. WMATA’s Mot. Dismiss at 5–7. … Supp. 3d at 113 (describing Plaintiff’s burden to establish subject- matter jurisdiction).

Goodwin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2022

Mem. at 8. 5 The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials sued in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Government officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Barnhardt v. District of Columbia

723 F. Supp. 2d 197 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2010

Qualified Immunity Sloan and Ramadhan argue that there was probable cause for Barnhardt’s arrest and hence no violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and, therefore, that qualified immunity protects them from suit. … Qualified immunity therefore protects Sloan from suit.

Amobi v. District of Columbia Department of Corrections

262 F.R.D. 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 8, 2009

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993)), they are cloaked with qualified immunity that must be defeated before discovery can proceed in a lawsuit based on the prosecutor’s actions. See, e.g., Siegert v. … prosecutor were not performed in his or her official capacity; (2) 19 if they won on that point, they would have to defeat a claim of qualified immunity by establishing

Dellums v. Powell

660 F.2d 802 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 24, 1981

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY OF DEFENDANT POWELL The District Court held that defendant Powell was entitled to only qualified immunity for his actions as Chief of the Capitol Police. 14 As a result, it denied his motion for judgment … A Qualified Immunity Standard Rejection of absolute immunity for defendant Powell’s actions hardly leaves him defenseless. Indeed, a standard of qualified immunity provides a formidable defense.

Fairbanks v. O'Hagan

378 F. Supp. 3d 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 10, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless 1) the plaintiff's allegations establish a violation of a protected right, 2) that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged … and thus defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Wallace v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2010

The officers’ stronger argument is that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The officers’ qualified immunity defense is evaluated under the two-step analysis set forth in Saucier v. … “If the facts alleged do establish that a constitutional right was violated,” the Court “go[es] on to ask whether that right was ‘clearly established.’” Id.

Anne W. Walker v. Honorable Ed Jones, Congressman of the United States

733 F.2d 923 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 1, 1984

Members of Congress may assert the same qualified immunity available to executive officials; officials can prevail on this ground if they establish that “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established constitutional right.

Wormley v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2009

But if so, then Step Two asks “whether the right was clearly established. … So long as a defendant’s alleged conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right, that defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Kartseva v. Department of State

37 F.3d 1524 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 5, 1995

Because we remand the constitutional question, we do not now decide whether the Bivens claims can survive a claim of qualified immunity. 21 28 In the event, however, that the district court finds the existence of a clearly … ] motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds can be resolved."

Smith ex rel. 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.

McGovern v. George Washington University

245 F. Supp. 3d 167 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2017

Whether the Individual Defendants May Invoke the Defense of Qualified Immunity Need Not Be Addressed “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for … See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (explaining that to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must “make out a violation of a constitutional right” and show that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’

Loumiet v. United States

315 F. Supp. 3d 349 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 5, 2018

Iqbal , the Supreme Court clearly articulated the concerns surrounding discovery in such cases: "The basic thrust of the qualified-immunity doctrine is to free officials from the concerns of litigation, including 'avoidance … The Supreme Court urges caution where discovery may entangle individuals potentially protected by qualified immunity.

Doe, John v. Exxon Mobil Corp

473 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 12, 2007

More specifically, the doctrines of qualified immunity and absolute immunity do not just protect covered individuals from judgments; they also provide protection from “the risks of trial — distraction of officials from their … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 816 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)) (qualified immunity). See also Nixon v.

Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 2011

Finally, the district court held that qualified immunity protected the defendants from the Bivens claims because, even if the plaintiffs possess constitutional rights, “those rights were not clearly established at the time … Furthermore, we concluded the defendants were protected by qualified immunity because, even assuming arguendo the detainees possessed rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, those rights were not clearly established

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2023

immunity and qualified privilege should not apply given the facts at hand. … immunity, as the essential facts entitling qualified immunity remain the same.

John Briggs v. Guy Goodwin

698 F.2d 486 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 17, 1983

with good-faith belief, that affords a basis for qualified immunity.” … In that decision, we determined that the requirements of Goodwin’s job justified only a qualified immunity, an immunity that depended on the good faith of his actions.

Guillory v. Bush

505 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2007

Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 , 109 S.Ct. 2304 , 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); (4) the complaint fails to state a claim against officials sued in their personal capacities under § 1983 who are entitled to qualified immunity … because there are no allegations that the officials’ conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow v.