Sponsors (11)
Ask me to break this bill down.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Amends the civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. 1983) to limit when law enforcement officers and the agencies that employ them can be held liable for violating federal rights. It defines “law enforcement officer” and “law enforcement agency,” says officers are not liable when the legal rule was not clearly established or a prior court has held the conduct lawful, and makes agencies immune when their officer is immune and acting within the scope of employment; the change takes effect 180 days after enactment.
Qualified immunity is intended to apply to government officials except for those who are plainly incompetent or who knowingly violate the law; it is meant to give government officials breathing room to make reasonable mistakes of fact and law.
The Supreme Court has observed that qualified immunity balances two important interests: (a) holding law enforcement officers accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly, and (b) shielding officers from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.
Amend Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (commonly cited as 42 U.S.C. 1983) by changing the opening word “Every” to “In general—”.
Add a new subsection (b) titled “Applicability to law enforcement officers” to 42 U.S.C. 1983, which creates rules that apply specifically to law enforcement officers and related agencies.
Define “law enforcement agency” to mean any Federal, State, Tribal, or local public agency engaged in supervision, prevention, detection, investigation, or the incarceration of any person for violation of law, and that has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension.
Who is affected and how:
Law enforcement officers: The legislation reduces the risk of personal liability in many civil-rights suits where courts find the governing law was not clearly established or where prior precedent favored the officer’s conduct. That reduces financial exposure and potential deterrent effects of suits.
Law enforcement agencies and local governments: Agencies can avoid liability for employee conduct when the officer is immune under the new rule and acted within their employment scope. This could lower payouts for damages and affect municipal liability budgets, insurance premiums, and risk management practices.
People bringing section 1983 claims (plaintiffs): Individuals alleging constitutional violations may face higher legal hurdles. Cases involving novel facts or unsettled law are more likely to be dismissed or fail, making it harder to secure remedies and possibly reducing incentives for settlements.
Courts and judges: Federal and state courts will need to apply the new statutory standard, leading to litigation over statutory interpretation and the relationship between the amended statute and existing case law on qualified immunity.
Public accountability and policing policy: By limiting liability in a broader set of circumstances, the bill may reduce one avenue for accountability and pressure to change behavior; conversely, proponents argue it reduces defensive litigation and protects reasonable official decisionmaking. Local training, supervision, and civil remedies may be re-evaluated in response.
Overall, the amendment narrows when officers and agencies can be held accountable under section 1983, shifting outcomes in civil-rights litigation, affecting plaintiffs, defendants (officers/agencies), and the courts that decide these cases.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced January 16, 2025 by James E. Banks · Last progress January 16, 2025
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate