Amicus Briefs
Martinez v. High
CASE SUMMARY
NCLA urges the Supreme Court to reexamine modern qualified immunity doctrine and abolish the atextual, ahistorical standard for qualified immunity that requires violations of the law to be “clearly established” via prior court precedents before officials can be held to account. The Court must at least refine the perilously pro-government “clearly established law” standard and clarify that government officials with time to reflect and make calculated choices before acting should not receive the same protection as a police officer making a split-second decision to use force.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found police officer Channon High violated Desiree Martinez’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights after disclosing a confidential domestic violence report to her abuser over the phone while fully aware that the abuser was in the room with her. The court determined that, as a result of Officer High’s reckless-at-best disclosure, Ms. Martinez was horrifically assaulted. In concluding that Officer High’s misconduct constituted a clear constitutional violation, the court pointed out that the “danger was obvious” and that Officer High had “acted with deliberate indifference toward the risk of future abuse.” Still, the court granted Officer High qualified immunity. Despite the violation of Ms. Martinez’s rights, it found the “clearly established” law standard had not been met because existing case precedent—though extremely similar—was not similar enough to unambiguously provide “fair notice” to every reasonable officer of the unlawfulness of High’s specific conduct.
Recent scholarship (and commonsense) concludes qualified immunity has been textually unmoored and historically flawed since its creation. The doctrine has failed to fulfill any of the public policy objectives used to justify qualified immunity at its inception. In creating qualified immunity, the Supreme Court wielded legislative power that is reserved for Congress alone.