Case law

Rasul v. Rumsfeld

433 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2006

Furthermore, because the defendants’ alleged actions violate rights clearly established at the time the defendants allegedly committed them, they are not entitled to any qualified immunity. … The Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that even if RFRA applies in GTMO, that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because its application in GTMO was not clearly established

Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

712 F. App'x 3 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 30, 2018

Alexis v. District of Columbia

77 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 1999

The “Right” Which Must Have Been “Clearly Established” The plaintiffs contend that qualified immunity does not apply, because Mr. … Williams acted in disregard of clearly established rights. Accordingly, Mr. Williams is entitled to qualified immunity as to his statements at the January 1997 press conference. D.

Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard

637 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 2011

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v. … The Supreme Court in Saucier established a two-step test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Polk v. District of Columbia

121 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 2000

When the defendant violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Valdes nevertheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if the right he allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time the violation occurred.

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2025

An officer is 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.’” … The court thus cannot say that binding precedent at the time clearly established that Officer Whitehead acted unlawfully.

Davis v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2016

In addition, as set forth above, such law is clearly established. Afari is thus not now protected by qualified immunity on Count I either. C. … Ward, 125 F.3d 1341, 1351 (10th Cir. 1997) (Fourth Amendment rule against unnecessary damage during search is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity).

Kyle v. Bedlion

177 F. Supp. 3d 380 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2016

violated a clearly established right[.]” Muhammad, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 122. Therefore, Bedlion is entitled to qualified immunity on Kyle’s excessive force claim. B. … immunity on a false-arrest claim). 8 Kyle’s brief in opposition to Defendants’ qualified -immunity motion does not establish otherwise.

Jonathan Hedgpeth v. Ammar Rahim

893 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 2018

The court also held that Officer Rahim was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive- force claim because no clearly established law prohibited the takedown maneuver he allegedly used to effect the arrest. … Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law. See Kisela, 138 S.

White v. Bagshaw

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2026

Overcoming a claim of qualified immunity requires a plaintiff to show both “[1] that an official violated a constitutional right and [2] that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Doe v. … Bagshaw claims qualified immunity over the supervisor liability claim, so White must again show both a violation of a constitutional right and that the asserted right was clearly established.

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

720 F.2d 162 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 21, 1983

The test for qualified immunity is “clearly established,” not “clearly foreshadowed.” The distinction is self-evident. … that for establishing the “objective” element of the old two-pronged test for qualified immunity.

Ulysse v. Stokes

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2021

As a result, Ulysse does not point to a case clearly establishing that Al-Hinawi’s alleged conduct here violated federal law, which entitles to Officer to qualified immunity. Ulysse turns to Taylor v. … By comparison to the objective qualified immunity test under § 1983, Hargraves v. D.C., 134 F.

Driever v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 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 … Jan. 15, 1997). 7 was clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes.” Daugherty v. Sheer, 891 F.3d 386, 390 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

Matthew Palmieri v. United States

896 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 24, 2018

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … When an official asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must “overcome” that assertion by demonstrating (inter alia) that the right “was clearly established at the time of” the alleged violation. Fox v.

Melodi Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Board of Govenors

637 F.3d 311 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 2011

Legal Background Appellant’s motion for dismissal is rooted in the well- established doctrine of qualified immunity. … The Board asserts its qualified immunity, but we are unable to determine without an evidentiary record whether any act it committed in defense of those functions constituted a violation of clearly established rights, or even

Youngbey v. March

676 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 17, 2012

They further claim that, even if their actions are determined to be unconstitutional, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Conclusion Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because neither their no-knock entry of appellees’ home nor their nighttime search violated “clearly established law.”

National Black Police Association, Inc. v. Richard W. Velde

712 F.2d 569 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 1983

The liability standard announced in Harlow entitles appellees to qualified immunity on summary judgment unless such clear duties existed. … Prior to Harlow, summary judgment on questions of qualified immunity generally required both subjective and objective determinations.

Halcomb v. Woods

767 F. Supp. 2d 123 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2011

Woods’ conduct to be in accordance with clearly established law, see Halcomb v. … He consequently has failed to show that he is entitled to qualified immunity. V.

Penthouse International, Ltd. v. Edwin A. Meese, Iii, Attorney General of the United States

939 F.2d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 24, 1991

did not violate any clearly-established First Amendment right. … If it does not — or at least if the right is not clearly established — the government’s motive is irrelevant.

Cárdenas v. Muangman

998 A.2d 303 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2010

Analysis of Appellants’ Expert’s Testimony Because the requirements for qualifying an expert to testify and assessing the qualified expert’s testimony for sufficiency overlap, they are susceptible to being confused. … apply District of Columbia law (and therefore allow Camacho’s claim to proceed) under the conflict of laws analysis used in that state. 10 The “potential interests of the jurisdictions involved,” Stutsman, 546 A.2d at 374, clearly