Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials.

A lot of people mistakenly believe this only applies to law enforcement, it doesn’t. It applies to anyone working for any government entity in the U.S.. It could be doctors, scientists, lawyers, groundskeepers, some federal contractors… as long as you derived your pay from a government agency, State or Federal. The problem with qualified immunity is that judges, who are also covered by this doctrine, have to see a violation of your rights for it this doctrine to be nullified and even then it’s a tough obstacle to get by if it doesn’t somehow state it explicitly in statutory or constitutional rights. I believe here is where an ipso facto doctrine should be made or invoked or placed into law. If the constitution was made to get rid of tyrannical behavior, then ipso facto, I like that word, it sounds funny, anyway, the ipso facto… anything that can be seen as illegal even though not clearly stated or defined should not fall under qualified immunity, or why did you make that freaking document, the constitution, in the first place. You know there is such a thing called the “spirit of the law” which means you do the right thing. Even if if the rules don’t explicitly say you can’t do something, because maybe it’s a new technology and it hasn’t been litigated yet, but you know it’s wrong, then doing it should end your qualified immunity, the reason why is because you are either a dumb dumb and shouldn’t be in that job, no malice, or just an evil asshole that should be in prison, with malice. Either way, qualified immunity is being tested but the problem, again, you are asking the government to hold itself more accountable, it’s going to be tough to do.

Ipso facto…. funny word…. latin for I’m drunk and can’t say is that a fact… right? No. It means by that very fact or act. In this case, by that very fact that the constitution was made to end tyrannical behavior, it should not be used to excuse it.