Case law

Thorp v. Dist. of Columbia

319 F. Supp. 3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 24, 2018

Even should he succeed, "the protection of qualified immunity is available if 'a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers … Even assuming arguendo that it was, qualified immunity would apply.

Young v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2018

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … As to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court must determine whether the Fourth Amendment rights that defendant Powell violated were clearly established at the time of the shooting.

James Dorsey v. United States Department of Labor

41 F.3d 1551 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 16, 1994

The federal government’s waiver of sovereign immunity must be “unequivocally expressed” and the statutory provision containing the expression must “establish unambiguously that the waiver extends to monetary claims.” … The three representatives and two senators, rather than expressing themselves clearly on the subject, uttered not a word about relinquishing the government’s immunity from damages.

Mitchell v. Yates

402 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2005

This issue is relevant to both municipal liability and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability in § 1983 actions “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Paul C. Murray v. Theodore M. Gardner, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation

741 F.2d 434 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 14, 1984

Under the Harlow standard for official immunity, if "the law was not clearly established at the time the contested conduct occurred, the inquiry ceases.” Zweibon v. Mitchell, 720 F.2d 162, 168 (D.C.Cir.1983). … The essence of qualified immunity is the necessity of protecting government officials from charges that they knowingly violated standards that were in fact unknowable.

Doe v. Rumsfeld

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Where, however, the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations, taken as true, show the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, a defendant’s motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity must be

James v. United States

709 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 11, 1989

The qualified immunity of a federal official attaches unless the official violates a clearly established right of the plaintiff or acts unreasonably under the circumstances. See Harlow v. … As the Supreme Court has explained, qualified immunity protects from suit “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v.

Inversora Murten, S.A. v. Energoprojekt Holding Co.

671 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2009

Similarly, in its notice of sovereign immunity, JICA stated that it is an “official agency of the Government of Japan, established by legislative enactment of the Japanese Diet.” … When a defendant qualifies for sovereign immunity, “the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction” over proceedings against that defendant, and therefore “must dismiss the case” against the immune defendant.

Emanuel Nikolaos Mpras v. District of Columbia

74 F. Supp. 3d 265 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2014

Mpras alleges that the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) “has established procedures for establishing eligibility [for] and the issuance of photographic identification for all qualified former … In enacting LEOSA, Congress clearly recognized the states’ authority to establish their own firearm permit standards and make their own decisions whether to issue the photographic identification required by subsection (

Bernier v. Obama

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2018

were not clearly established at the time the alleged violations occurred. … As noted above, this court dismissed Plaintiff’s Bivens claim on the second “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test. See Pearson v.

Laura Elkins v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The district court denied Williams-Cherry qualified immunity on the ground that it has long been clearly established that seizing items based on a warrant that does not authorize such seizure is unconstitutional.

Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic - Ministry of H

824 F.3d 131 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 2016

Additionally, the district court concluded the Czech Republic had not waived its sovereign immunity under the terms of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(1). … “Commercial” merely means “matters which have a connection to commerce,” and the Framework Agreement is clearly connected to commerce. Any “argument to the contrary will not sell.” Belize Soc. Dev.

Intl Actn Ctr v. United States

365 F.3d 20 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 2004

Merits Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘‘from lia- bility for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If the court establishes the violation of a constitutional right, it must then ‘‘proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.’’ Id. (quotation omitted).

Robinson v. Pilgram

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 17, 2021

Even for pro se litigants, courts in this Circuit find failure to adequately allege whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged injury dispositive in the qualified immunity analysis. … Sept. 17, 2021) (finding a pro se litigants’ claims barred by qualified immunity where they “fail[ed] to identify any clearly established 36 constitutional right”);

Brown v. Handy

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2010

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … DSO Short’s Conduct Was Not Objectively Reasonable in Light of Clearly Established Law The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry requires courts to examine whether the defendant

Noble Capital LLC v. People's Republic of China

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2025

In 2020 and 2021, the PRC issued distinct, dollar-denominated bonds on the Hong Kong Exchange, which were sold to qualified institutional investors in the United States. Id. ¶ 38. … “A foreign state explicitly waives its sovereign immunity in a treaty or contract only if it ‘clearly and unambiguously’ agrees to suit.” Ivanenko v. Yanukovich, 995 F.3d 232, 239 (D.C.

Hargraves v. District of Columbia

134 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2015

Qualified Immunity In suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “[p]ublic officials are immune from suit . . . … Consequently, whether qualified immunity applies “‘generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the [official’s] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time.’”

Powell v. Nigro

601 F. Supp. 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 1985

Thus, defendants are at most entitled to qualified immunity if their acts were performed in good faith. … It would be premature for the Court to rule at this time on whether the defendants are protected by qualified immunity as “the scope of that immunity will necessarily be related to facts as yet not established either by affidavits

Liser v. Smith

254 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2003

In the present case, the Court concludes that Detective Smith’s conduct relating to plaintiffs arrest and continued detention are protected by qualified immunity. … As such, defendant’s actions in preparing the affidavit are protected by qualified immunity.

Kenley v. District of Columbia

83 F. Supp. 3d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2015

within one month of its discovery, that duty was not clearly established at the time. … In Section 1983 cases, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights