,,ii  #aaith ,,congress  #ast ,session  
,s4 #aiac  ,,in ,,the ,,senate ,,of     
,,the ,,united ,,states  ,may #bb1      
#bjbe,mr4 ,markey 7for himself1 ,ms4    
,warren1 and ,mr4 ,sanders7 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 ,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 #bb7 to enforce the #adth       
,amendment to the ,constitution of the  
,united ,states and combat rampant      
violations of civil and constitutionally
 secured rights across the ,united      
,states1 particularly those of newly    
freed slaves and other ,black people 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    
persons acting under color of law1      
including ,state and local officials1   
who violate their ,federal legal and    
constitutionally secured rights4  7#c7  
,under section #aihc a person may be    
held liable for acting under color of   
,state law1 even if they are not acting 
in accordance with ,state law4  7#d7    
,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#e7 ,from #ahga
 through the #aifjs1 government actors  
were not afforded qualified immunity for
 violating rights4  7#f7 ,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#g7 ,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#h7 ,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#i7  
,the 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#aj7 ,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 
,congress ,it is the sense of ,congress 
that ,congress must correct the         
erroneous interpretation of section     
#aigi of the ,revised ,statutes that    
provides for qualified immunity and     
reiterate the standard found on the face
 of the statute1 which does not limit   
liability on the basis of the good-faith
 belief of the defendant 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-- 7#a7 by inserting 7a7 before  
,every person2 and  7#b7 by adding at   
the end the following3  7b7 ,it shall   
not be a defense to any action pending  

on1 or filed after1 the date of         
enactment of this subsection 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  4