The doctrine of Qualified Immunity is unfit for purpose. We ask the US Supreme Court to reconsider its scope and particularly its application to cases of excessive force and police brutality. 

On the 4 June 2020, Justin Amash announced a Bill to End Qualified Immunity. This petition supports his proposed legislation. Find details of the proposed legislation here: https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1268606685368770563?s=20 

The information below is sourced from https://theappeal.org/qualified-immunity-explained/

The Supreme Court established qualified immunity in 1967, creating it as an exception for public officials who had acted in “good faith” and believed that their conduct was authorized by law. Fifteen years later, in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Court expanded the defense. The protection afforded to public officials would no longer turn on whether the official acted in “good faith.” Instead, even officials who violate peoples’ rights maliciously will be immune unless the victim can show that his or her right was “clearly established.”

Qualified immunity means that victims of brutality or harassment by law enforcement generally get no relief in court and have no ability to hold offending officers accountable for their actions. That means the officers who commit the brutality and harassment—and the governments that employ them—have little incentive to improve their practices and follow the law.