1
00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:04,040
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso. This is case

2
00:00:04,120 --> 00:00:07,640
Speaker 1: number twenty CPE one Night to Fortnight for State versus

3
00:00:07,680 --> 00:00:11,520
Speaker 1: Gareth David rolf As. Another police officer has charged in

4
00:00:11,560 --> 00:00:14,240
Speaker 1: the killing of a black man, this time in Atlanta.

5
00:00:14,720 --> 00:00:17,880
Speaker 1: The country is struggling with the issue of police accountability,

6
00:00:18,239 --> 00:00:21,200
Speaker 1: and a once obscure legal doctrine that shields police and

7
00:00:21,320 --> 00:00:25,880
Speaker 1: civil suits has come under attack. Here's Democratic Senator Corey Booker.

8
00:00:26,280 --> 00:00:28,800
Speaker 1: We have to ask ourselves as a society, do we

9
00:00:28,920 --> 00:00:31,800
Speaker 1: want to have a nation where police officers do really

10
00:00:31,880 --> 00:00:37,240
Speaker 1: awful things cannot be held accountable. Uh. Two civil rights

11
00:00:37,360 --> 00:00:41,920
Speaker 1: charges and that's unacceptable. But the Supreme Court rejected several

12
00:00:41,960 --> 00:00:45,879
Speaker 1: cases challenging the doctrine of qualified immunity. Joining me as

13
00:00:45,920 --> 00:00:49,960
Speaker 1: Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School, qualified immunity

14
00:00:50,200 --> 00:00:52,440
Speaker 1: is not an issue at this point in the current

15
00:00:52,479 --> 00:00:56,360
Speaker 1: cases involving police. So why has it become so much

16
00:00:56,440 --> 00:01:00,200
Speaker 1: of an issue that even four hundred professional athlete some

17
00:01:00,360 --> 00:01:05,120
Speaker 1: coaches wrote a letter asking Congress to get rid of it. Well, so,

18
00:01:05,280 --> 00:01:10,200
Speaker 1: I think police misconduct in many contact is being questioned,

19
00:01:10,520 --> 00:01:16,360
Speaker 1: and it's true that a deliberate police killing of an innocent,

20
00:01:16,720 --> 00:01:21,960
Speaker 1: unarmed civilian would not entitle the officer to qualified immunity

21
00:01:22,160 --> 00:01:25,720
Speaker 1: in a civil lawsuit. Indeed, the person could be criminally liable,

22
00:01:25,720 --> 00:01:29,680
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, But people are looking at a range

23
00:01:29,840 --> 00:01:33,600
Speaker 1: of abuses by police, and that includes all sorts of

24
00:01:33,680 --> 00:01:39,360
Speaker 1: things like stopping frisk, policies like excessive force, and in

25
00:01:39,440 --> 00:01:43,640
Speaker 1: many of those cases that are somewhat less egregious, officers

26
00:01:43,760 --> 00:01:47,960
Speaker 1: now are immune from civil liability even if they violate

27
00:01:48,000 --> 00:01:51,040
Speaker 1: somebody's civil rights so long as it was not clearly

28
00:01:51,200 --> 00:01:53,720
Speaker 1: established at the time of the conduct that they were

29
00:01:53,800 --> 00:01:57,280
Speaker 1: violating civil rights. And so many people now with heightened

30
00:01:57,280 --> 00:02:01,400
Speaker 1: awareness of police misconducts, think that qualified immunity is another

31
00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:06,600
Speaker 1: potential target for reforms. Would you just explain what the

32
00:02:06,680 --> 00:02:12,880
Speaker 1: line is for qualified immunity. So the statute forbids violations

33
00:02:12,960 --> 00:02:16,840
Speaker 1: of civil rights, but an officer will only be held

34
00:02:16,960 --> 00:02:21,519
Speaker 1: liable for violating civil rights if, in addition to violating

35
00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:28,880
Speaker 1: the rights, it's also true that a reasonable officer would

36
00:02:28,880 --> 00:02:34,560
Speaker 1: have been unnoticed that what he was doing was a violation,

37
00:02:35,480 --> 00:02:39,200
Speaker 1: and that means it needs to be quote clearly established

38
00:02:39,960 --> 00:02:45,679
Speaker 1: that the conduct in which the officer engaged violated civil rights.

39
00:02:45,880 --> 00:02:49,840
Speaker 1: The way in which the law clearly establishes that particular

40
00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:54,800
Speaker 1: conduct violated civil rights is with prior adjudications, meaning precedents

41
00:02:54,840 --> 00:02:57,840
Speaker 1: from other cases, And the Supreme Court has said that

42
00:02:57,919 --> 00:03:00,680
Speaker 1: the president in the prior case has to be very

43
00:03:00,720 --> 00:03:03,720
Speaker 1: similar to the current case. It is not enough that

44
00:03:03,760 --> 00:03:07,920
Speaker 1: in a previous case the Court said excessive force in

45
00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:12,920
Speaker 1: the arrest of a motorist is a violation of civil rights.

46
00:03:12,960 --> 00:03:16,160
Speaker 1: It has to be excessive force that looks like the

47
00:03:16,200 --> 00:03:21,360
Speaker 1: excessive force used in this particular case. Many lawyers, academics,

48
00:03:21,440 --> 00:03:25,880
Speaker 1: and even judges have criticized the doctrine for years. Is

49
00:03:25,880 --> 00:03:29,400
Speaker 1: it because it's been interpreted to require this precise match

50
00:03:29,880 --> 00:03:32,800
Speaker 1: to conduct in a prior case? In other words, has

51
00:03:32,840 --> 00:03:36,680
Speaker 1: the interpretation of it become too rigorous? Yes? So, I

52
00:03:36,680 --> 00:03:42,240
Speaker 1: think there are two main objections to qualify immunity. One

53
00:03:42,800 --> 00:03:47,880
Speaker 1: is that some justices and scholars criticized the very concept

54
00:03:47,920 --> 00:03:52,600
Speaker 1: of qualified immunity. They argue that the Civil Rights Statute,

55
00:03:52,800 --> 00:03:56,920
Speaker 1: which was passed during reconstruction, does not contain a defense

56
00:03:56,960 --> 00:04:00,480
Speaker 1: of qualified immunity, and it's illegitimate for the courts to

57
00:04:00,640 --> 00:04:03,680
Speaker 1: read one in where it wasn't put there by Congress.

58
00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:08,360
Speaker 1: But there's a second and somewhat narrower criticism of qualified immunity,

59
00:04:08,360 --> 00:04:11,560
Speaker 1: which is exactly the one to which you've pointed, namely,

60
00:04:11,880 --> 00:04:16,640
Speaker 1: that the courts are giving officers qualified immunity too broadly

61
00:04:17,120 --> 00:04:22,040
Speaker 1: because they require that to show that the officer should

62
00:04:22,040 --> 00:04:25,479
Speaker 1: have known what he was doing was unreasonable, that there

63
00:04:25,520 --> 00:04:28,600
Speaker 1: has been an exact case just like this one, and

64
00:04:28,640 --> 00:04:31,159
Speaker 1: that that does seem to be a problem in the

65
00:04:31,200 --> 00:04:35,279
Speaker 1: interpretation of qualified immunity rather than a problem with qualified

66
00:04:35,320 --> 00:04:39,080
Speaker 1: immunity itself. So is that problem due to the Supreme

67
00:04:39,160 --> 00:04:44,440
Speaker 1: Court's interpretation of the doctrine they created over the years?

68
00:04:44,480 --> 00:04:48,800
Speaker 1: Have they held the victims to such a high bar? Yes?

69
00:04:48,839 --> 00:04:52,599
Speaker 1: I think so. The original doctor of qualified immunity used

70
00:04:52,600 --> 00:04:56,599
Speaker 1: a subjective good state standard. At some point after the

71
00:04:56,680 --> 00:05:00,680
Speaker 1: Nixon administration, the Court, in a case called Harlowe against

72
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:03,680
Speaker 1: the Scald that changed that to an objective standard. The

73
00:05:03,760 --> 00:05:07,640
Speaker 1: question is what would a reasonable officer do in these circumstances,

74
00:05:07,800 --> 00:05:10,760
Speaker 1: rather than what did this particular officer intent? And I

75
00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:14,760
Speaker 1: don't think there's anything inherently problematic with an objective reasonable

76
00:05:14,760 --> 00:05:17,880
Speaker 1: officer test. It's just that, over the years, in case

77
00:05:17,920 --> 00:05:20,839
Speaker 1: after case, the Court seemed to think that more and

78
00:05:20,920 --> 00:05:23,680
Speaker 1: more officers were reasonable because they said that you had

79
00:05:23,720 --> 00:05:27,279
Speaker 1: to have a prior case almost exactly like the current

80
00:05:27,320 --> 00:05:29,520
Speaker 1: one in order to be unnoticed. So what you were

81
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:32,200
Speaker 1: doing was unlawful. So yes, I do think it is

82
00:05:32,240 --> 00:05:36,599
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court that, in various cases gave broader and

83
00:05:36,680 --> 00:05:42,360
Speaker 1: broader immunity. The Supreme Court rejected eight cases involving qualified

84
00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:46,159
Speaker 1: immunity with only one dissent from Clarence Thomas. Wouldn't this

85
00:05:46,240 --> 00:05:48,160
Speaker 1: be the time for the Court to take up this

86
00:05:48,200 --> 00:05:52,279
Speaker 1: issue when it's under attack. Well, I don't think necessarily.

87
00:05:52,320 --> 00:05:55,000
Speaker 1: It's a surprise, that is to say, the Court doesn't

88
00:05:55,040 --> 00:06:00,760
Speaker 1: give reasons for rejecting excretionary reviewing particular cases. It's true

89
00:06:00,760 --> 00:06:03,880
Speaker 1: to Justice Thomas in one of these cases and in

90
00:06:03,920 --> 00:06:07,000
Speaker 1: some previous cases, has expressed the view that he would

91
00:06:07,040 --> 00:06:09,839
Speaker 1: like to re examine qualified immunity, but none of the

92
00:06:09,839 --> 00:06:14,200
Speaker 1: other justices has strongly indicated that preference. And I think

93
00:06:14,200 --> 00:06:18,159
Speaker 1: you also understand that judicial elimination of qualified immunity would

94
00:06:18,160 --> 00:06:22,720
Speaker 1: not necessarily be such a victory for civil rights plaintiffs.

95
00:06:22,720 --> 00:06:24,479
Speaker 1: It would depend on what goes with it. One of

96
00:06:24,480 --> 00:06:26,880
Speaker 1: the things that Justice Thomas said in his descent is

97
00:06:26,880 --> 00:06:29,960
Speaker 1: that he would also like to re examine case called

98
00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:34,440
Speaker 1: Monroe against Tapes that allows lawsuits against government, and maybe

99
00:06:34,480 --> 00:06:36,039
Speaker 1: he wants to get rid of that too when he

100
00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:38,799
Speaker 1: gets rid of qualified immunity, so he would be giving

101
00:06:38,800 --> 00:06:41,599
Speaker 1: with one hand but taking away with the other. Potentially,

102
00:06:42,200 --> 00:06:45,920
Speaker 1: What about Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Hasn't she in the past

103
00:06:46,080 --> 00:06:51,000
Speaker 1: called it an absolute shield for law enforcement officers? Did

104
00:06:51,040 --> 00:06:55,240
Speaker 1: you expect that she might write some kind of a descent, Yes,

105
00:06:55,320 --> 00:06:58,400
Speaker 1: So I think that that that that's a different sort

106
00:06:58,400 --> 00:07:01,000
Speaker 1: of critique by Justice Thomas is the first critique. He

107
00:07:01,040 --> 00:07:04,640
Speaker 1: thinks that the Court was acting illegitimately in creating this

108
00:07:04,800 --> 00:07:07,279
Speaker 1: defense at all, certainly one that goes beyond the common

109
00:07:07,360 --> 00:07:09,840
Speaker 1: law and justice set of Mayor is more concerned that

110
00:07:09,920 --> 00:07:14,960
Speaker 1: the policy is enabling abuse. Um, But you don't need

111
00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:18,400
Speaker 1: to re examine the very idea of qualified immunity to

112
00:07:18,920 --> 00:07:21,880
Speaker 1: go where Justice Soto Mayor wants to go. All you

113
00:07:21,960 --> 00:07:24,600
Speaker 1: need to do is in the next case in which

114
00:07:24,640 --> 00:07:28,360
Speaker 1: somebody raises a qualified immunity defense, to cut back on

115
00:07:28,440 --> 00:07:30,000
Speaker 1: it a little bit. And you can do that in

116
00:07:30,040 --> 00:07:32,880
Speaker 1: a case by case basis. I think Justice Soto Mayor

117
00:07:33,440 --> 00:07:37,240
Speaker 1: might be worried that if the court were to go

118
00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:40,960
Speaker 1: down the route that Justice Thomas is suggesting, they might

119
00:07:41,080 --> 00:07:44,680
Speaker 1: also cut back on other doctrines, some of which, as

120
00:07:44,720 --> 00:07:48,800
Speaker 1: I said, favor people whose civil rights may have been violated.

121
00:07:49,000 --> 00:07:54,400
Speaker 1: One example would be the exclusionary rule in criminal prosecutions

122
00:07:54,480 --> 00:07:58,280
Speaker 1: that currently allows somebody who has been the victim of

123
00:07:58,320 --> 00:08:02,800
Speaker 1: an unlawful search to suppress evidence of that search in

124
00:08:02,840 --> 00:08:06,920
Speaker 1: their criminal trial. I wrote on my blog that it

125
00:08:07,040 --> 00:08:09,480
Speaker 1: might be that the price of getting rid of qualified

126
00:08:09,480 --> 00:08:13,800
Speaker 1: immunity would also be to get rid of the exclusionary rule,

127
00:08:13,840 --> 00:08:17,760
Speaker 1: because that is also a judge made rule. And you

128
00:08:17,800 --> 00:08:23,240
Speaker 1: wrote a piece would eliminating qualified immunity substantially deter police misconduct?

129
00:08:23,640 --> 00:08:26,240
Speaker 1: And then there you bring up the point that police

130
00:08:26,280 --> 00:08:30,520
Speaker 1: officers don't have to pay for the damages out of pocket.

131
00:08:30,960 --> 00:08:34,560
Speaker 1: They're reimbursed for them by the city the state is so,

132
00:08:34,760 --> 00:08:40,200
Speaker 1: is this really a deterrent for police officers? Right? Uh? Well,

133
00:08:40,240 --> 00:08:43,560
Speaker 1: there is a little bit of stigma that goes with

134
00:08:43,760 --> 00:08:47,880
Speaker 1: being found to have violated somebody's civil rights, and so

135
00:08:48,800 --> 00:08:53,640
Speaker 1: getting rid of qualified immunity would potentially have uh an

136
00:08:53,679 --> 00:08:55,679
Speaker 1: impact that way. But if we think that the main

137
00:08:56,679 --> 00:09:00,560
Speaker 1: role is being played by the fear of money damages.

138
00:09:01,160 --> 00:09:07,880
Speaker 1: Then indemnification mostly by municipal police force forces and really

139
00:09:07,960 --> 00:09:11,959
Speaker 1: ultimately the taxpayers, means that you're not having that much

140
00:09:12,000 --> 00:09:14,080
Speaker 1: of a de turn effect. And so you would continue

141
00:09:14,080 --> 00:09:15,840
Speaker 1: not to have so much of a de turn effect

142
00:09:16,120 --> 00:09:18,480
Speaker 1: if you got rid of qualified immunity. Now, one thing

143
00:09:18,520 --> 00:09:24,720
Speaker 1: you would see potentially greater liability for local government, and

144
00:09:24,760 --> 00:09:28,880
Speaker 1: that might give the local government greater incentive to supervise

145
00:09:29,000 --> 00:09:33,240
Speaker 1: and to train and discipline their officers uh to a

146
00:09:33,240 --> 00:09:36,200
Speaker 1: greater extent than they currently do. So there's a there's

147
00:09:36,240 --> 00:09:41,000
Speaker 1: a possible upside um. You know. One way to address

148
00:09:41,720 --> 00:09:45,520
Speaker 1: this issue that I've raised is you could make indemnification

149
00:09:45,840 --> 00:09:48,559
Speaker 1: illegal and I would just say we're not going to

150
00:09:48,679 --> 00:09:52,840
Speaker 1: enforce indemnification contracts if an officer is found to have

151
00:09:53,800 --> 00:09:59,000
Speaker 1: violated civil rights um. And so that's that's another possibility.

152
00:09:59,000 --> 00:10:02,680
Speaker 1: I don't know that it's being proposed in some of

153
00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:05,319
Speaker 1: the pending bills that would either eliminate or cut back

154
00:10:05,400 --> 00:10:09,920
Speaker 1: unqualified immunity. There's a lot of movement now in the

155
00:10:10,000 --> 00:10:14,160
Speaker 1: Democrats Justice and Policing Act, they would end qualified immunity.

156
00:10:14,559 --> 00:10:19,679
Speaker 1: Congressman Justin Amash has a bill that would end qualified immunity,

157
00:10:19,720 --> 00:10:23,160
Speaker 1: but often sort of like when there are gun violence

158
00:10:23,200 --> 00:10:26,440
Speaker 1: cases and then there's an uproar and a call to

159
00:10:26,559 --> 00:10:29,920
Speaker 1: change gun laws doesn't happen when it peters out. How

160
00:10:30,000 --> 00:10:34,080
Speaker 1: likely is it, in your view that Congress will actually

161
00:10:34,200 --> 00:10:39,560
Speaker 1: eliminate qualified immunity. I think it's not very likely in

162
00:10:39,600 --> 00:10:43,240
Speaker 1: the current Congress, because you would need to get it

163
00:10:43,440 --> 00:10:46,400
Speaker 1: through the Senate as well as the House, and of

164
00:10:46,480 --> 00:10:50,920
Speaker 1: course the Senate is controlled by Republicans now, although in

165
00:10:51,000 --> 00:10:53,800
Speaker 1: the current political moment it looks like there are a

166
00:10:53,840 --> 00:10:58,679
Speaker 1: great many possibilities. I'm not an expert in sort of

167
00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:03,480
Speaker 1: legislative politics, but I think that the best chance of

168
00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:07,600
Speaker 1: getting a bill through in the current Congress, that is

169
00:11:07,640 --> 00:11:12,120
Speaker 1: to say, before the next Congress and potentially a different president,

170
00:11:12,800 --> 00:11:14,839
Speaker 1: that the best chance would be as part of a

171
00:11:15,000 --> 00:11:20,960
Speaker 1: larger package of congressional reforms. I think a upper down

172
00:11:21,080 --> 00:11:24,280
Speaker 1: vote on getting rid of qualified immunity probably would not

173
00:11:24,920 --> 00:11:28,240
Speaker 1: get past the filibuster in the Senate and maybe wouldn't

174
00:11:28,280 --> 00:11:32,160
Speaker 1: be signed by President Trump. But if you package it

175
00:11:32,200 --> 00:11:34,760
Speaker 1: was something else that was sort of a compromise bill

176
00:11:34,840 --> 00:11:37,040
Speaker 1: and could make it through both houses of Congress, it

177
00:11:37,240 --> 00:11:41,240
Speaker 1: it might be possible. Could the Supreme Court be waiting

178
00:11:41,280 --> 00:11:44,480
Speaker 1: to see if Congress acts, and if Congress doesn't act,

179
00:11:44,640 --> 00:11:48,400
Speaker 1: perhaps he'll decide to take it up next term. Yeah,

180
00:11:48,440 --> 00:11:53,280
Speaker 1: that's the possibility. Um Qualified immunity is a judge made doctrine,

181
00:11:53,320 --> 00:11:56,520
Speaker 1: but it's not a constitutional requirements. They're doing it as

182
00:11:56,559 --> 00:12:02,080
Speaker 1: a matter of a combination of statutory interpretation and what's

183
00:12:02,120 --> 00:12:05,520
Speaker 1: sometimes called common law. That is to say, they have

184
00:12:05,640 --> 00:12:10,319
Speaker 1: the power to recognize defenses. Uh. So Congress could overrule

185
00:12:10,400 --> 00:12:12,720
Speaker 1: them on either ground in the same way that Congress

186
00:12:12,720 --> 00:12:16,160
Speaker 1: can change an existing statute. Uh. And so one reason

187
00:12:16,240 --> 00:12:19,120
Speaker 1: sometimes for the Court to wait is to see if

188
00:12:19,480 --> 00:12:22,800
Speaker 1: Congress is going to make the change. Thanks Michael. That's

189
00:12:22,840 --> 00:12:26,480
Speaker 1: Michael Dorff, a professor at Cornell Law School. I'm June

190
00:12:26,480 --> 00:12:28,000
Speaker 1: Grosso and this is Stilber