The Qualified Immunity Abolition Act and Reform Efforts

If you have ever tried to find out whether you can sue a police officer who violated your rights, you have run into qualified immunity. It is a court-made defense that often shields government officials from money damages even when they broke the law. For years, lawmakers in Congress and in the states have tried to limit or abolish it. This article explains what the so-called Qualified Immunity Abolition Act would do, where federal reform stands, and which states have already changed their own rules.

What qualified immunity actually is

The main federal civil-rights law, known as Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1983), lets you sue a state or local official who violates your constitutional rights — for example, an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment or excessive force under Graham v. Connor. The statute itself says nothing about immunity. The Supreme Court created qualified immunity on its own, first in Pierson v. Ray (1967) and then in its modern form in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982).

Under that doctrine, an officer is protected unless the plaintiff can show the officer violated "clearly established" law — meaning a prior court case with nearly identical facts already held the conduct unconstitutional. Pearson v. Callahan (2009) lets judges decide the "clearly established" question first and skip ruling on whether a right was violated at all. Critics say this creates a catch-22: without a prior ruling on point, no right is "clearly established," and because courts can dodge the merits, the law never gets clearly established. That is the core problem reformers are trying to fix.

The Qualified Immunity Abolition Act and federal bills

There is no single permanent statute called the "Qualified Immunity Abolition Act." Instead, members of Congress have repeatedly introduced bills with that goal, and people searching for a "Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026" are usually looking for the latest version of these efforts. The two best-known federal vehicles are:

• The Ending Qualified Immunity Act, first introduced in 2020 by Representatives Ayanna Pressley and Justin Amash and reintroduced in later Congresses. It would amend Section 1983 to state plainly that qualified immunity and "good faith" are not defenses to a civil-rights suit.
• The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a broader policing-reform package that passed the House in 2020 and 2021 but stalled in the Senate. Its qualified-immunity section would have narrowed, not fully abolished, the defense for police officers.

As of mid-2026, no federal bill has become law, and qualified immunity remains the rule in federal court nationwide. Bills are reintroduced from Congress to Congress, so the exact name and number change. Treat any "2026 Act" headline as a proposal unless you can confirm it was actually enacted. Because the doctrine is currently federal common law, only Congress or the Supreme Court can change it for federal Section 1983 claims.

States are reforming it on their own

Qualified immunity applies to federal civil-rights claims. States cannot abolish it for those claims, but they can create their own state-law cause of action that does not include the defense. Several have done exactly that.

Colorado

Colorado moved first with the Law Enforcement Integrity Act, Senate Bill 20-217, passed in 2020. It created a new state civil claim against peace officers for violating the Colorado constitution and expressly says qualified immunity is not a defense. Officers can be held personally responsible for a portion of a judgment (up to a statutory cap) if their employer determines they did not act in good faith.

New Mexico

The New Mexico Civil Rights Act, effective in 2021, lets people sue government bodies for violations of the state constitution and bars qualified immunity as a defense. Unlike Colorado, it channels liability to the public entity rather than the individual officer, but it removes the immunity hurdle.

Other states and cities

Connecticut's 2020 police-accountability law narrowed (though did not fully eliminate) immunity for certain state-law claims. New York City created a local cause of action for unlawful searches and excessive force that excludes qualified immunity. Many other states have debated bills that did not pass. Because these are new statutes, the details — caps, deadlines, who pays — vary a lot and are still being interpreted by courts.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Civil-rights deadlines are short and the rules differ sharply by state and by whether you sue under federal or state law. If you think your rights were violated, talk to a civil-rights attorney quickly.

What this means for you in practice

Even where qualified immunity still applies, it is a defense to civil damages — it does not make a search or an arrest legal, and it does not stop you from challenging evidence in a criminal case through the exclusionary rule. Knowing the difference helps you act sensibly at the scene and afterward.

• Document everything. Strong, specific facts — video, names, badge numbers, witnesses, injuries, medical records — are what overcome a qualified-immunity defense, because they let your lawyer match your case to existing precedent.
• Don't escalate at the scene. You generally cannot win a rights dispute on the roadside. Stay calm, state that you do not consent to a search, invoke the right to remain silent, and preserve your claim for later.
• Ask about state-law options. If you are in Colorado, New Mexico, or another state with its own civil-rights act, you may have a claim that avoids qualified immunity entirely. A lawyer can tell you whether the state route, the federal route, or both fit your facts.
• Mind the clock. Section 1983 borrows the state's personal-injury statute of limitations, and state civil-rights acts often have their own deadlines and notice requirements. Waiting can forfeit an otherwise strong case.

Where reform is headed

Momentum has shifted from one big federal fix to a patchwork of state experiments. That means your ability to recover for police misconduct increasingly depends on which state you are in. Federal abolition bills keep returning, and the Supreme Court occasionally trims the doctrine at the edges, but for now qualified immunity remains the default in federal court. Watching your own state legislature is often the most useful thing you can do, because that is where the law is actually changing.