General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Democrats Can End Qualified Immunity for ICE Agents By David Sirota

Days after ICE killed Renee Good, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) tweeted out Donald Trump adviser Stephen Miller on Fox News declaring, To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.
DHS and Miller were referring to qualified immunity, which the National Lawyers Guild notes is a legal doctrine created by the U.S. Supreme Court that protects public officials, including police officers, immigration officers, and immigration detention center staff from civil liability for constitutional and statutory violations.
In its story about whether the families of those murdered by ICE can sue federal agents, Reuters points out that under existing legal doctrines, federal officers are immune from civil lawsuits unless their conduct clearly violated a clearly established constitutional right. This legal standard, known as qualified immunity, has become a highly effective tool for shielding police officers accused of using excessive force.
But simple, two-page legislation introduced in Congress would change that. This bill has been just sitting there in the US House for months. To be sure, it wouldnt fix everything. But it could start fixing the specific problem of ICE agents having qualified immunity from wrongful death lawsuits and other such civil cases whose threat of monetary damages are supposed to create a deterrent to bad behavior.
https://jacobin.com/2026/01/democrats-ice-lawsuits-immunity-murder]
leftstreet
(39,276 posts)MichMan
(16,795 posts)Federal, State and Local.
SheltieLover
(77,851 posts)SheltieLover
(77,851 posts)Just as other professions do.
How many ice thugs would qualify? Guessing zero.
Taxpayers should not be subjected to abuse from them nor the ensuing lawsuits.
ret5hd
(22,293 posts)police, etc need to be bonded/insured just like doctors, lawyers, cpas, etc.
if you cant get coverage
well, time to find another job.
This.right.here.
SSJVegeta
(2,527 posts)Faux pas
(16,200 posts)intrepidity
(8,573 posts)I don't quite understand. I mean the actual counter-argument.
MichMan
(16,795 posts)Judge or DA gives someone probation, offers a plea bargain that avoids any jail time, or orders someone released from custody pending trial. Person then goes out and commits another crime. Should the Judge or DA be able to be sued by the victims?
This is one that happened around here a few years ago. Gunmen that shot and killed multiple students at Michigan State University was caught a year or so earlier carrying an illegal firearm as a felon. That would have been a felony with jail time, but the DA offered a plea bargain of carrying a loaded firearm inside a vehicle, even though he was on a bicycle at the time. Got probation.
Then police then later had complaints of him target shooting in his back yard in a residential neighborhood, yet did nothing as the DA had a policy of not charging gun crime violations without an underlying crime. Then that same individual went on a shooting spree on the MSU campus killing three and wounding 5 more. Without qualified immunity, the victims could sue the DA, Judge, or police personally for tens of millions for not sentencing him to jail before.
How about elected politicians being sued personally for actions during the covid lockdowns that caused a business to go bankrupt, or legislators being sued personally by someone for laws they passed.
Hugin
(37,567 posts)
clearly established constitutional right.
I would guess that bar had already been met by American citizens being shot in the face while driving and executed for peaceably assembling.
This qualified immunity gambit the Turd Reich is playing is a complete overreach. But
If the Democrats want to get very specific about it with a law. Fine.