Case law

In Re Series 7 Broker Qualification Exam Scoring Litigation

510 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2007

Here, plaintiffs argue that NASD’s and EDS’s activities would not qualify under the Butz factors for the type of official immunity applied to SROs in Austin and Barbara . … a registered broker-dealer are qualified to transact securities-related business with the public.

Smith v. Lanier

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individually-named police officers will not be liable for damages if they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . … clearly established”4 at the time of the defendants’ alleged misconduct.

Al-Zahrani v. Rumsfeld

684 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2010

Yet, the Court is not at liberty to disregard clearly established, controlling precedent. See, e.g., United States v. … District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637, 652 (D.C.Cir.2001), the individual defendants in this case are also protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity- 6 .

Taylor v. Reilly

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2010

Supp. 2d 232, 242, n.13 (D.D.C. 2008) (noting cases granting quasi-judicial absolute immunity to probable cause hearing examiners and parole commissioners); compare Atherton, 567 F.3d at 683-84 (rejecting absolute immunity … Even if Wynn’s functions are not quasi- judicial, defendants argue correctly that she would be shielded by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 2005–nor is it today– that the Commission’s retroactive

Roth v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2021

“The 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 of which a reasonable … The plaintiffs have not, however, pointed to a violation of any clearly established Fourth Amendment right that can overcome the defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity.

Smith v. United States of America

121 F. Supp. 3d 112 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2015

Defendants further argue that the existence of probable cause, the statute of limitations, and the doctrine of qualified immunity likewise doom Smith’s Bivens claim against Rogers and Anyaso. (Id. at 8, 10, 24). … immunity (see, e.g., Defs.’

Kotsch v. District of Columbia

924 A.2d 1040 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 24, 2007

immunity and a qualified privilege that entitles the officer to use an amount of force reasonably necessary to effect the arrest. … The District asserts that the qualified privilege that protects the officers from the common law claim of assault and battery is similar to the qualified immunity that shields them from the constitutional claim of excessive

Zuza v. Office of the High Representative

857 F.3d 935 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 30, 2017

The United States responded that Ashdown and Inzko had been notified to and accepted by the Secretary of State (Secretary) and thus qualified for immunity. … It entitles qualifying officers and employees to immunity not only from “suit” but also from “legal process.” 22 U.S.C. § 288d(b). Legal process is an expansive term.

Andrews v. Wilkins

934 F.2d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 1991

Qualified immunity is available to federal and state officials charged with constitutional torts so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, the claimants made out a valid claim for a constitutional tort, against which the Deputy lacked qualified immunity.

Conn v. American National Red Cross

168 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2016

Therefore, the Supreme Court has held, when Congress establishes a federal entity—which ordinarily would be protected by sovereign immunity from all aspects of civil liability and litigation—and “launche[s] [it] into the … Not only has the Red Cross failed clearly to show that Congress intended its sue-and-be- sued clause to be anything other than a full waiver of immunity, the Court concludes that the statutory structure of the ADEA and

Carlos Loumiet v. United States

948 F.3d 376 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 28, 2020

And it denied those officials qualified immunity on the ground that the “First Amendment right to be free from retaliatory prosecution” was clearly established long before 2006. Id. at 93 (quotation marks omitted). … We begin with the cause-of- action question, which is antecedent to the question of qualified immunity.

Robinson v. District of Columbia

736 F. Supp. 2d 254 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2010

Qualified Immunity 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 … They do not address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the rights at issue were “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Holsey v. Chandler

598 F. Supp. 368 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 6, 1984

These defendants are entitled to at least a qualified immunity from damages for acts taken within the scope of their authority. … There is absolutely no suggestion that these defendants “violate[d] clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Fitzgerald v.

Embrey v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 2022

“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.” White v. … For a plaintiff to strip an officer of qualified immunity, then, the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and that the violated “right was clearly established

Youngbey v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2011

Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Accordingly, the Court finds that the constitutional right in question was sufficiently established to satisfy the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Barroca v. Hurwitz

342 F. Supp. 3d 178 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 28, 2018

Qualified Immunity The Defendants also move to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. Defs.' Mem at 18-24. … This immunity is applicable when the challenged "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow 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

Ross v. United States

641 F. Supp. 368 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 1986

Thus, to qualify for immunity, Mr. … Cf Hobson, supra, 737 F.2d at 20 (particularity in pleading required in civil rights complaints where defendant asserts qualified immunity). Plaintiffs’ theory with regard to Mr.

Martin v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2025

The FTCA also does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity as to Count Four. To establish jurisdiction under the FTCA, a plaintiff must “demonstrate that the claim asserted is the kind permitted by statute.” … Nor does Martin identify any new statutes that clearly waive the United States’ sovereign immunity for Counts Four and Five. For example, he cites 28 U.S.C. § 612.

Lee v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 2026

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (“Until this threshold [qualified] immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.”); Behrens v. … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309–11 (1996) (holding that denials of qualified immunity are immediately appealable at both the motion to dismiss and summary judgment stages); United States v. Trump, 706 F.