,,ii  #aafth ,,congress  #b;d ,session  
,s4 #djcf  ,,in ,,the ,,senate ,,of     
,,the ,,united ,,states  ,june #bc1     
#bjbj,mr4 ,braun introduced the         
following bill2 which was read twice and
 referred to the ,committee on the      
,judiciary  ,a ,,bill  ,to amend the    
,revised ,statutes to reform the defense
 of qualified immunity in the case of   
any action under section #aigi1 and for 
other purposes4  #a4 ,short title ,this 
,act may be cited as the ,reforming     
,qualified ,immunity ,act4  #b4         
,findings ,the ,congress finds the      
following3 7#a7 ,congress passed the    
,act of ,april #bj1 #ahga 7commonly     
known as the ,ku ,klux ,klan ,act2 #ag  
,stat4 #ac1 chapter #bb71 to combat     
rampant violations of civil and         
constitutionally secured rights across  
the nation1 particularly in the         
post-,civil ,war ,south4  7#b7 ,included
 in that ,act was a provision1 now      
codified at section #aigi of the        
,revised ,statues 7in this section      

referred to as section #aihc71 which    
provides a cause of action for          
individuals to file lawsuits against    
,state and local officials who violate  
their legal and constitutionally secured
 rights4  7#c7 ,section #aihc has never 
included a defense or immunity for      
government officials who act in good    
faith when violating rights1 nor has it 
ever had a defense or immunity based on 
whether the right was clearly           
established at the time of the          
violation4  7#d7 ,from the law's        
beginning in #ahga1 through the #aifjs1 
government actors were not afforded     
qualified immunity for violating rights4
  7#e7 ,the ,supreme ,court of the      
,united ,states in ,pierson v4 ,ray1    
#chf ,u4,s4 #edg 7#aifg71 found that    
government actors had a good-faith      
defense for making arrests under        
unconstitutional statutes based on a    
common-law defense for the tort of false
 arrest4  7#f7 ,the ,supreme ,court of  
the ,united ,states later extended the  

good-faith defense beyond false arrests1
 turning it into a general good-faith   
defense for government officials4  7#g7 
,finally1 in ,harlow v4 ,fitzgerald1    
#deg ,u4,s4 #hjj 7#aihb71 the ,supreme  
,court of the ,united ,states found the 
subjective search for good faith in the 
government actor unnecessary1 and       
replaced it with an objective           
reasonableness standard that requires   
that the right be clearly established at
 the time of the violation for the      
defendant to be liable4  7#h7 ,this     
doctrine of qualified immunity has      
severely limited the ability of many    
plaintiffs to recover damages under     
section #aihc when their rights have    
been violated by ,state and local       
officials4  7#i7 ,as a result1 the      
intent of ,congress in passing section  
#aihc has been frustrated1 and the      
rights secured by the ,constitution of  
the ,united ,states have not been       
appropriately protected4  #c4 ,sense of 
the ,congress ,it is the sense of the   

,congress that ,congress must correct   
the erroneous interpretation of section 
#aigi of the ,revised ,statutes and     
reform the court-created doctrine of    
qualified immunity4  #d4 ,reform of     
qualified immunity ,section #aigi of the
 ,revised ,statutes 7#db ,u4,s4,c4      
#aihc7 is amended-- 7#a7 by inserting   
7a7 before ,every person2 and  7#b7 by  
adding at the end the following3  7b7   
7#a7 ,except as provided in paragraph   
7#b71 it shall not be a defense to any  
action brought under this section that1 
at the time of the deprivation-- 7,a7   
the defendant was acting in good faith2 
7,b7 the defendant believed1 reasonably 
or otherwise1 that his or her conduct   
was lawful2  7,c7 the rights1           
privileges1 or immunities secured by the
 ,constitution and laws were not clearly
 established2 or  7,d7 the state of the 
law was such that the defendant could   
not reasonably have been expected to    
know whether his or her conduct was     
lawful4  7#b7 ,a defendant sued in his  

or her individual capacity under this   
section shall not be liable if the      
defendant establishes that1 at the time 
the deprivation occurred-- 7,a7 7i7 the 
conduct alleged to be unlawful was      
specifically authorized or required by a
 ,federal statute or regulation1 or by a
 statute passed by the primary          
legislative body of the ,state1         
,territory1 or ,district of ,columbia in
 which the conduct was committed2  7ii7 
no court of competent jurisdiction had  
issued a final decision on the merits   
holding1 without reversal1 vacatur1 or  
preemption1 that the provision or       
provisions of the statute or regulation 
authorizing or requiring such conduct   
were inconsistent with the ,constitution
 or ,federal laws2 and  7iii7 the       
defendant reasonably believed that his  
or her conduct was in conformance with  
the ,constitution of the ,united ,states
 and ,federal laws2 or  7,b7 7i7 a court
 of competent jurisdiction had issued a 
final decision on the merits holding1   

without reversal1 vacatur1 or           
preemption1 that the specific conduct   
alleged to be unlawful was consistent   
with the ,constitution of the ,united   
,states and ,federal laws2 and  7ii7 the
 defendant reasonably believed that his 
or her conduct was in conformance with  
the ,constitution of the ,united ,states
 and ,federal laws4  7c7 7#a7 ,in a     
covered action1 a municipality or other 
unit of local government shall be liable
 for a violation of subsection 7a7 by an
 agent or employee of the municipality  
or other unit of local government acting
 within the scope of his or her         
employment4  7#b7 ,it shall not be a    
defense to a covered action described in
 paragraph 7#a7 that-- 7,a7 the agent or
 employee was acting in good faith1 or  
that the agent or employee believed1    
reasonably or otherwise1 that his or her
 conduct was lawful at the time when it 
was committed2 or  7,b7 the rights1     
privileges1 or immunities secured by the
 ,constitution and laws were not clearly

 established at the time of their       
deprivation by the agent or employee1 or
 that at this time1 the state of the law
 was otherwise such that the agent or   
employee could not reasonably have been 
expected to know whether his or her     
conduct was lawful4  7d7 ,in this       
section-- 7#a7 the term court of        
competent jurisdiction means-- 7,a7 the 
,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states2 
7,b7 a district court or court of       
appeals of the ,united ,states that has 
jurisdiction over the territory in which
 the deprivation occurred2 or  7,c7 a   
court of general jurisdiction of a      
,state1 ,territory1 or ,district that   
has jurisdiction over the territory in  
which the deprivation occurred2  7#b7   
the term covered action means an action 
under subsection 7a7 against-- 7,a7 an  
agent or employee of a municipality or  
other unit of local government acting in
 his or her official capacity2 or  7,b7 
a municipality or other unit of local   
government2 and  7#c7 the term defendant

 does not include-- 7,a7 a municipality 
or other unit of local government2 or   
7,b7 an individual employed by a        
municipality or other unit of local     
government acting in his or her official
 capacity4  4