4 | The Villanovan
OPINION
Wednesday, September 2, 2020
OPINION
End Qualified Immunity to Increase Police Accountability ages when those rights were violated. Today, Section 1983 is the main avenue through which individuals can hold their government accountable if they are a victim of police brutality; On Aug. 26, the Milwaukee this is typically done through a lawsuit Bucks decided to forego their playoff alleging a violation of their Fourth game to bring attention to the police Amendment right to be free from unshooting of Jacob Blake the previous reasonable search and seizure. HowSunday in Kenosha, Wisconsin. As ever, through a series of cases since the the rest of the NBA games scheduled 1960s, the Supreme Court has inventfor that night were postponed, the ed the doctrine of qualified immunity, WNBA, MLB and MLS also postponed their remaining schedule for the which has become a significant barrier evening in a show of unity. According to citizens’ ability to successfully sue on the basis of a violation of their to ESPN, the Bucks players used the rights. The Supreme Court qualified time to call the Wisconsin Attorney immunity precedent holds that govGeneral and Lieutenant Governor ernment officials cannot be sued even and asked how to help enact police if someone’s rights have been violated reform, to which the Lieutenant Governor recommended pushing for unless the infringement is “clearly “action at every level of government.” established law.” As the Cato Institute has explained, this means “it is entirely One of the most effective reforms possible—and quite common—for the players could use their platforms courts to hold that government agents to advocate for is the elimination of did violate someone’s rights, but that qualified immunity, a legal doctrine the illegality of their conduct wasn’t that often prevents people from suing sufficiently obvious for them to be held when their constitutional rights have been violated by government officials, liable to the victim of their misconduct.” including police officers. While the legal jargon may After the Civil War, African obscure to the untrained eye how the Americans in Southern states were doctrine prevents accountability, a few subjected to denial of their newly examples demonstrate its untenability acquired constitutional rights as local and why it is imperative for it to be and state officials failed to prevent racial violence. As part of Reconstruc- abolished. Under the doctrine, the “clearly established” standard means tion, Congress passed the Ku Klux that unless there is a practically idenKlan Act of 1871, which contained tical case demonstrating the conduct a provision, now known as Section was unconstitutional, the government 1983, providing a path for citizens to official in question will be granted sue government officials for violating immunity. Take the case of Alexander their constitutional rights. The law Baxter, who sued two police officers was a critical step in protecting individuals’ constitutional rights because it who in the course of his arrest sicced their canine on him after he surrenempowered citizens to recover damAndrew Ceonzo Guest Writer
dered. One might think it is clearly a violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights to have a police dog released on you after you have surrendered and have your hands in the air, as Baxter did. However, as the Institute for Justice explains, the officers were “entitled to qualified immunity because—while an earlier case had held that officers were not allowed to sic a dog on someone lying down—no case had ever discussed whether they could do so to a suspect who was sitting down with his hands up.” Additionally, the court further explained, according to the Cato Institute, that while “an earlier case had established that the use of an attack dog against a suspect who was not fleeing was an excessive use of force, the court distinguished that case because the dog in Baxter’s case had better training and police had warned Baxter they might use the dog before he surrendered.” Or consider the case where police shot a 10-year-old child while trying to shoot the family’s non-threatening dog. The officer was granted immunity because, according to the Institute for Justice, “no earlier case held it was unconstitutional for a police officer to recklessly fire his gun into a group of children without justification. The Court also declined to establish that rule. Not only was the officer let off the hook in that case, but the very same officer could act the same way again, and would still be entitled to qualified immunity.” Recognizing the problems with qualified immunity, public interest legal organizations across the ideological spectrum, such as the Cato Institute, Institute for Justice, ACLU, Alliance Defending Freedom, and
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, have all taken steps to rein it in by supporting litigation that seeks to chip away at the doctrine. Instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to correct its mistake—a process that could take years—the doctrine could be eliminated through an act of Congress at any time. In fact, Representatives Justin Amash (L-MI) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) have introduced such a bill, aptly named the Ending Qualified Immunity Act. Additionally, state legislatures can take action to curtail qualified immunity within state courts, just as Colorado did earlier this summer in response to the police killing of George Floyd. Eliminating qualified immunity would have the immediate effect of giving citizens a way to collect damages as a remedy for a violation of their constitutional rights, introducing much needed accountability. Additionally, the threat of such liability would have the long-term effect of making governments bear the cost of violating an individual’s rights, providing a strong incentive for governments to improve hiring, training, and disciplinary practices of officials, especially police officers. Ending qualified immunity would mean that the government and citizens would be on equal footing: the citizens are responsible to obey the laws, and the government will be held accountable to follow the Constitution. There cannot be two sets of laws in this country where the citizenry is held to a stricter standard than the government officials who serve at the will of the citizens. Abolishing qualified immunity will bring us one step closer to making that principle a reality.
American Disconnect: The Tale of Two National Conventions Brendan Donoghue Staff Writer As Election Day 2020 approaches, both the Republicans and Democrats have wrapped up their respective conventions, with President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden having officially accepted their respective party nominations. Historically, party conventions have given each candidate the best chance to frame the election and make their case directly to the American people. While 2020 has certainly been anything but a normal year (underscored by the largely virtual conventions), the one constant in this election cycle has been the role of the party conventions. There were many identifiable differences between the two conventions, ranging from the more substantive messaging to the more superficial production value. More than anything, the single greatest difference between the two parties was who they chose as their messengers. Specifically, the Democratic Party made a fundamental error in their reliance on celebrities to champion their electability. Almost by definition, celebrities have an inflated sense of their own importance, and a polit-
ical party that trots out celebrities as their chief messengers overestimates the impact that celebrity endorsements have on the electorate. In an election that will come down, once again, to the votes of blue collar Americans, celebrity endorsements do very little to influence key voters. Americans living in rural Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan care very little about the political perspectives of Julia Louis-Dreyfus or Kerry Washington. They care even less about who Billy Porter or Billie Eilish want to see elected President. Instead, they want a President who they believe can have a positive and recognizable impact on their lives. They want a President whose policies prioritize jobs, economic growth and security. The impassioned pleas of millionaire actors and artists living in Beverly Hills do next to nothing in terms of convincing an individual making $60,000 a year fracking in Pennsylvania to change their vote. Contrast the lineup of Hollywood celebrities throwing their support behind Joe Biden at the DNC to the Americans expressing their support for President Trump at the RNC. A Wisconsin dairy farmer, a Minnesota logger, a police officer and the president of a Nebraska-based heating, ventila-
tion and air conditioning company are just a few examples of working-class Americans who highlighted the RNC speaker lineup. President Trump won the presidency in 2016 because of the American people’s strong dislike of Hillary Clinton and his successful attempt to appeal to working-class Americans in rural areas. By ignoring those same working-class Americans in favor of liberal celebrities is, in my opinion, a
mistake of colossal proportion for a democratic party that refuses to learn its lesson from 2016. There is a significant chance President Trump loses in November. After an effective and targeted convention, he could blow it all with one tweet. That is what Democrats are counting on. But if the President exhibits anything close to self control (an admittedly big “if ”), the reliance on celebrities could backfire in a big way.
Courtesy of Getty Images
