Case law

Jefferies v. District of Columbia

917 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2013

Chief Lanier has Qualified Immunity from Individual Liability for Plaintiff’s Statutory and Constitutional Causes of Action Chief Lanier would also enjoy qualified immunity from individual liability … It is appropriate to raise issues of qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss.

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

Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2023

Under that statute, “Congress established . . . a comprehensive framework for resolving any claim of sovereign immunity.” Republic of Argentina v. … “To enforce an award against a foreign state in the United States, a party must therefore establish both that the foreign state is not immune from suit and that the property to be attached or executed against is not immune

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.

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.

Roth v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 21, 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.

Margaret T. Whitacre v. James F. Davey

890 F.2d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 17, 1989

The qualified immunity test originally consisted of both objective and subjective elements. … insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Weise v. Jenkins

796 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2011

Both motions raised, among other arguments, the defense of qualified immunity. … Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs’ right not to be ejected from the Presidential event was not clearly established

Robertson v. Merola

895 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 1995

immunity. … Plaintiff fails to identify a clearly established right which the Defendants are alleged to have violated.

Bertram Zweibon v. John N. Mitchell, Individually and as Attorney General of the United States

606 F.2d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 1979

In this case, *1181 however, where there was no “avulsive” change of law, the qualified immunity available to appellees ensures that no such inequitable result can occur. As we state today in Halperin v. … Our disagreement with that court focuses on two points: (1) We do not think that the rule of Keith was not clearly foreshadowed, and (2) we believe that because qualified immunity protects potential defendants acting in good

Caldwell v. Hammonds

53 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 1999

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects an official from suits for damages in the performance of discretionary duties unless the official “ ‘knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere … A transfer for such a reason would violate clearly established constitutional law, as the Defendants knew or should have known.

Jangjoo v. Broadcasting Board of Governors

244 F. Supp. 3d 160 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2017

Circuit emphasized in Mpoy, “even if speech is protected by the First Amendment, a court must dismiss claims against a government official in his personal capacity if the official is entitled to qualified immunity.” … “Under [the doctrine of qualified immunity], courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal capacity unless ‘the official violated a statutory or constitutional right’ and ‘the right was clearly

Powers-Bunce v. District of Columbia

479 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2007

Indeed, the assertion of a qualified immunity defense significantly changes and complicates the analysis that the Court must perform in the context of these motions to dismiss. … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 306 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Kapar v. Islamic Replublic of Iran

105 F. Supp. 3d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 2015

and execution absent a waiver of foreign sovereign immunity. … Reference to Section 1605A in Section 1610(g)’s attachment provision is quite clearly a benefit provided by the law.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management

562 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2008

There, the court stated that to qualify for the sovereign-immunity exception articulated in Thompson, a statute must evince clear congressional intent regarding retroactive application, either on its face or in its legislative … Such a finding certainly establishes a causal connection between the filing of the complaint and the release of documents.

Kimberlin v. Quinlan

774 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 1991

that were clearly established at the time of the conduct in question. … right, and qualified immunity would not attach to their actions.

U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Data SEC. Breach Litig. v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.

928 F.3d 42 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 2019

Tex. 2013) (because “[n]o sovereign immunity has been established,” the court “therefore concludes that there is no governmental immunity from which an immunity may be derived for the benefit of” the contractor), aff’d sub … employed by the government would have only qualified immunity, while a private contractor who works in the prison but is no more than a common law agent would have absolute immunity”).

SACE S.p.A. v. Republic of Paraguay

243 F. Supp. 3d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2017

World Wide Minerals, Ltd., 296 F.3d at 1162 (requiring that a foreign state must have “clearly and unambiguously” expressed its intent to waive its sovereign immunity). … which unquestionably qualifies as a public act.

Harris v. Holder

885 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2012

Qualified Immunity Bars Plaintiff’s Bivens Claims Even if plaintiff had successfully alleged Bivens claims against the individual defendants, qualified immunity would bar the claims. … If the plaintiff satisfies this first step, the Court then decides whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. Id.

District of Columbia v. Pizzulli

917 A.2d 620 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2007

To the extent that it is relevant to the present case, Doe effectively established limits on official immunity by clearly holding that not all subordinates are automatically entitled to share in the congressional lawmakers … Whether their claim of immunity is (or is not) viable will depend on specific facts yet to be established; at this juncture we simply do not know what those facts are. 10 .