,,ii  #aafth ,,congress  #b;d ,session  
,s4 #dadb  ,,in ,,the ,,senate ,,of     
,,the ,,united ,,states  ,july #a1      
#bjbj,ms4 ,warren 7for ,mr4 ,markey 7for
 himself1 ,mr4 ,sanders1 and ,ms4       
,warren77 introduced the following bill2
 which was read twice and referred to   
the ,committee on the ,judiciary  ,a    
,,bill  ,to amend the ,revised ,statutes
 to remove 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 ,ending ,qualified ,immunity    
,act4  #b4 ,findings ,the ,congress     
finds as follows3 7#a7 ,in #ahga1       
,congress passed the ,ku ,klux ,klan    
,act to combat rampant violations of    
civil and constitutionally secured      
rights across the nation1 particularly  
in the post-,civil ,war ,south4  7#b7   
,included in the act was a provision1   
now codified at section #aihc of title  
#db1 ,united ,states ,code1 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 ,in #aifg1 the ,supreme ,court in
 ,pierson v4 ,ray1 #chf ,u4,s4 #edg1    
suddenly 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 ,court 
later extended this 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 ,court 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 ,as a result1 the intent of  
,congress in passing the law has been   
frustrated1 and ,americans' rights      
secured by the ,constitution have not   
been appropriately protected4  #c4      
,sense of the ,congress ,it is the sense
 of the ,congress that we must correct  
the erroneous interpretation of section 
#aihc which provides for qualified      
immunity1 and reiterate the standard    
found on the face of the statute1 which 
does not limit liability on the basis of

 the defendant's good faith beliefs or  
on the basis that the right was not     
clearly established at the time of the  
violation4  #d4 ,removal of qualified   
immunity ,section #aigi of the ,revised 
,statutes 7#db ,u4,s4,c4 #aihc7 is      
amended by adding at the end the        
following3 ,it shall not be a defense or
 immunity to any action brought under   
this section that the defendant was     
acting in good faith1 or that the       
defendant believed1 reasonably or       
otherwise1 that his or her conduct was  
lawful at the time when it was          
committed4 ,nor shall it be a defense or
 immunity that the rights1 privileges1  
or immunities secured by the            
,constitution or laws were not clearly  
established at the time of their        
deprivation by the defendant1 or that   
the state of the law was otherwise such 
that the defendant could not reasonably 
have been expected to know whether his  
or her conduct was lawful44