Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=90852
 


 



Qualified Immunity: Ignorance Excused


Barbara E. Armacost


University of Virginia School of Law


51 Vanderbilt Law Review, April 1998

Abstract:     
Public officials are immune from damages liability for constitutional violations if they reasonably could have believed their actions were constitutional under clearly established law. In this regard qualified immunity is quite unusual. In most other legal contexts failure to know the law is virtually never excused. The only other context where notice or knowledge of illegality plays any role is in criminal law, but even mistakes of penal law are rarely excused.

This article uses fair notice in criminal law as a paradigm for analyzing the role of notice in constitutional damages actions. The article first demonstrates how fair notice in the criminal context is a proxy for fault. The criminal law paradigm is then applied to qualified immunity in constitutional damages cases. The animating notion behind the immunity inquiry is that it would be "unfair" to hold officials to rules they could not reasonably have known. The objective clarity of the law acts as a surrogate for the official's subjective state of mind: Thus, if the law governing the official's conduct was clear, immunity is denied because any reasonably conscientious official would have known and obeyed the law. Conversely, an official who engaged in conduct that was neither clearly prohibited nor contained indicia of its own wrongfulness is not blameworthy and immunity will attach. In the latter case, the clarity of the law -- qualified immunity's notice inquiry -- acts as a proxy for fault. The article then demonstrates how the fault-notice connection borrowed from criminal law explains a puzzling feature of constitutional damages law: The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of individual, fault-based liability and resisted a move toward respondeat superior liability. However, the ubiquity of indemnification of individual officials by their governmental units means that officials rarely bear the monetary burden of liability. The article proposes that fault-based, individual liability -- which identifies a particular official as a "constitutional wrongdoer" -- serves a moral blaming function that has significant independent value regardless of who ultimately bears the financial responsibility.

Accepted Paper Series





Not Available For Download

Date posted: June 8, 1998  

Suggested Citation

Armacost, Barbara E., Qualified Immunity: Ignorance Excused. 51 Vanderbilt Law Review, April 1998. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=90852

Contact Information

Barbara E. Armacost (Contact Author)
University of Virginia School of Law ( email )
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
United States
804-924-3413 (Phone)
804-924-7536 (Fax)

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,223

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.297 seconds