Monday, June 30, 2025
spot_imgspot_img
Monday, June 30, 2025

Milwaukee Press Club 'Excellence in Wisconsin Journalism' 2020 & 2021 Award Winners

Why The Reckless Move to Abolish Qualified Immunity is Dangerous

spot_img

It’s “defund the police 2.0.” While we’re at it, let’s remove absolute immunity for legislators, judges and district attorneys who actually have time to think through decisions. 

Qualified Immunity Pros and Cons

Last week, Democrats re-introduced the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act of 2020, named after a man who died, as shocking as the video was, with a lethal amount of drugs in his system, a severe heart condition, had COVID and was fighting with police after committing a crime.

This led to a summer of violence, destruction, looting, assault, and murder. Progressives used this carefully concocted lie to convince Americans that police must be defunded. However, the “defund the police” narrative has failed; that’s proved by what is happening in Minneapolis where violent crime has spiked.

So leave it to the left to try something new to weaken law enforcement by eliminating qualified immunity, or “defund the police 2.0.”

Homicides and violent crimes are rising at shocking rates in Milwaukee and many other large cities. More than ever, qualified immunity is imperative to allow police to do their jobs without fear of baseless legal actions that could ruin their reputations, careers and financial well-being.

Removing qualified immunity will expose police officers to frivolous lawsuits, in which judges and juries could second-guess split-second decisions made by officers in good faith with a Monday morning quarterback perspective which will lead to significant financial exposure to the individual officers (or cities, if they give officer’s liability protection).

It is unreasonable to expect officers to be legal scholars and think through legal arguments when attempting to take immediate action. We don’t ask this of other officials, including prosecutors and legislators, who are allowed to make discretionary decisions, even arguably wrong but good faith ones, without fear of constant lawsuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court has found: “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” It’s the second part that liberals want to remove.

It must be emphasized: qualified immunity grants police officers performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” It’s important to note that police do not have absolute immunity, which is enjoyed by elected officials, judges and district attorneys. More about that later.

In addition, qualified immunity doesn’t just apply to police officers. State governors, school teachers, prison officials – all government workers – are protected. But they only want to strip police officers of this protection, even though they have the toughest, most challenging jobs.

They’re the ones who have to make the split-second critical decisions. In what other profession do people have to make immediate decisions that could severely alter the course of their lives? Legislators, judges, and others don’t have to make such immediate decisions. They get to sit around and think about it. But they get even stronger protection?

How can society truly weaken law enforcement? Do this.

Defund the police proponents presumably realized that only big urban departments will be defunded while surrounding suburbs still enjoyed strong police departments (and less crime as a result). Eliminating qualified immunity is a way to systemically weaken, if not destroy, every police department in America. It’s “defund the police 2.0.” Worse, many people don’t understand what “qualified immunity” means, so they might buy the left’s false narrative that it will only “make it possible to hold bad cops accountable.”

No. It will open the floodgates for mercenary trial attorneys to go after average cops personally, including their homes and bank accounts. If you think they would only target the “truly bad” police officers (of which there are a few), you haven’t been paying attention. The people who think curfew tickets are “racist,” for example? Will they sue each officer personally? Even if exonerated, the punishment would be in the process and the costs and stress of fending off constant lawsuits.

Here’s what will happen:

Police officers require qualified immunity to perform their jobs. Police officers perform vital tasks that require split-second decisions under stressful circumstances. The absence of qualified immunity will lead officers to be hesitant to act when action is imperative.

If you want to recruit qualified officers, forget it. Who in their right mind would open themselves up to such personal liability? Every officer capable of retiring will do so. You have to protect your family. This will subject the community to a less qualified, younger police force lacking the cumulative wisdom and training of veterans. Would this be retroactive? What if it is? What if every officer can be retroactively sued personally for every decision someone didn’t like? Can pensions be targeted?

Police should not be held personally liable for actions taken to keep the public safe. During the heightened period of violence in our country, the courts recognized the important role police play in fighting crime and keeping neighborhoods safe and gave them the protection they need to do so without fear and risk of baseless civil actions.

Police officers must be allowed to make good-faith mistakes or have moments of bad judgment without worrying about being a defendant in a civil action. Otherwise, they will just freeze and take no action for fear that they and their family will be financially ruined if they make the wrong call in the eyes of a jury.

Just last month, attorney Kimberley Motley sent out “Notice of Intent” to sue letters to city and county officials along with “numerous Wauwatosa, Waukesha, and West Allis police officers” for actions taken to enforce a curfew during protests and rioting in October. If not for qualified immunity, each of these officers would have to hire their own attorney and fight these allegations, costing them time, money, and added stress.

Qualified immunity pros and cons

Absolute Immunity

Absolute immunity provides both criminal prosecution and civil protection to judges, prosecutors, and legislators for actions committed in their official duties as long as those actions do not have malice or corrupt motives.

It’s ironic that these Democratic legislators, who insist on removing qualified immunity from police officers, will still enjoy absolute immunity and will not be held criminally or civilly responsible for the spike in violent crime and deaths that will result. They want police officers held civilly liable for split-second decisions made by officers, then let’s remove absolute immunity for judges, prosecutors, and legislators who have plenty of time to research and ponder their decisions before they make them.

What is Qualified Immunity and How Did it Come to Exist?

Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine created by the Supreme Court that shields government employees from liability for misconduct, even if they violate the law. Under the doctrine, government employees, including police officers, can not be sued for violating someone’s civil rights, unless they violated “clearly established law” in light of existing case law. In the Supreme Court’s own words, it protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” The doctrine doesn’t prevent officers from being criminally charged.

According to theappeal.org, The Supreme Court invented qualified immunity in 1967, describing it as a modest exception for public officials who had acted in “good faith” and believed that their conduct was authorized by law. Fifteen years later, in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Court drastically expanded the defense.

The protection afforded to public officials would no longer depend on whether the officials acted in “good faith.” Instead, even officials who violate people’s rights maliciously will be immune unless the victim can show that his or her right was “clearly established.”

It was felt that the good faith standard led too often to costly trials to determine an officer’s state of mind, and this approach chilled officers from taking necessary police actions. The new standard made the test whether a reasonable person would have known the actions followed “clearly established legal principles.”

The Supreme Court wrote that “it now is clear that substantial costs attend the litigation of the subjective good faith of government officials. Not only are there the general costs of subjecting officials to the risks of trial — distraction of officials from their governmental duties, inhibition of discretionary action, and deterrence of able people from public service.” That’s why the court created the new standard that an officer also needs to have violated “clearly established” law to be personally sued.

The Court wrote, “We conclude today that bare allegations of malice should not suffice to subject government officials either to the costs of trial or to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery. We, therefore, hold that government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”


Qualified Immunity Pros and Cons: Should There be a Change to it?

Interestingly, last summer, a bill called, The “Ending Qualified Immunity Act” (the first-ever “tripartisan” bill, with Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian co-sponsors) went further and would have eliminated qualified immunity for all public officials. This bill did not pass.

Republican Indiana senator Mike Braun, a Republican senator from Indiana, introduced the “Reforming Qualified Immunity Act.” This bill would have substantially cut back on the scope of qualified immunity.

We do believe that there is room to discuss revisiting the qualified immunity standard; there are some issues with the clearly established language, in which officers who committed clear wrongdoing (like theft) would still be protected by qualified immunity because the facts of their case did not closely enough match any previous ruled upon cases in which the courts determined that act was not covered by qualified immunity.

The court was trying to avoid costly trials and procedures that deter cops from doing their jobs over cases that weren’t clearly established wrongdoing (i.e., defense attorneys reaching). However, maybe we need to bring back the “good faith” standard.  Revisiting the standard is something that should be considered in lieu of eliminating qualified immunity altogether.

Qualified immunity should not be abolished.


Milwaukee Common Council Members Asked President Biden to Ban Qualified Immunity for Police Officers

In January, members of Milwaukee’s Common Council asked President Joe Biden to ban the use of qualified immunity for police officers in wrongful death lawsuits. You can see that letter here.

In response, Milwaukee Police Association president Dale Bormann said,

“It shows that those who signed this letter to President Biden about qualified immunity have zero respect for law enforcement and the people who protect them every day. It also shows their lack of support for law enforcement and the job that they do each and every day.”

In the end, this is just another way for progressives to destroy law and order in this country. It will be a money grab for civil attorneys as they will see the suing of police officers and cities to be low-hanging fruit and the means for Marxists to take control of our country.

kendall corder

MPD Confirms Sad News That Officer Kendall Corder Has Died; Procession Unfolding

The Milwaukee Police Department has officially confirmed the tragic news that Officer Kendall Corder has died in the line of duty. Earlier in the day,...

Oconomowoc Rotary Refuses to Document ‘Threats’ & There’s No Police Reports

Getting criticized is hard, but reasonable criticism - even heated criticism - is not a threat. And it's what representative democracy is all about,...
kendall corder, tremaine jones

Tremaine Jones: Milwaukee DA Declined to Prosecute Him 4 Times Leading Up to Officer Shooting

KEY FINDINGS: Accused cop shooter Tremaine Jones was given a deferred prosecution agreement for a 2021 Milwaukee case involving a stolen Kia and...
Killed by Milwaukee Reckless Drivers Milwaukee Reckless Drivers Kill Box In Milwaukee Police

2 Milwaukee Police Officers Shot Near 25th & Garfield

Two Milwaukee police officers were shot on the evening of June 26, police confirmed. One officer remains in critical condition and the second does...
josh schoemann Washington County’s Early Vote

2026 GOP Candidate Josh Schoemann Challenges Evers’ Budget Approach

(The Center Square) – Josh Schoemann, the only Republican currently in the race for governor next year, is criticizing Gov. Tony Evers’ approach to the next state budget by comparing it to his plans in Washington County.

“In Washington County our budget cycle starts right now, and it’s not due until November. We will propose our budget goals to the County Board in the next couple of months. We will share ‘This is what we’re thinking.’ It gives them months of time to think those through, give us feedback, and [have] that kind of dialogue,” Schoemann explained in an interview on News Talk 1130 WISN.

Schoemann said that is far better than the approach Evers is taking again this year.

“That’s not how government is supposed to work,” Schoemann said. “It’s not the vision of the governor. It’s not the vision of any one person.”

Evers and the Republican legislative leaders who will write the budget have been involved in on-again, off-again budget talks this month. On Thursday, the governor’s office said those talks were off once again because of gridlock in the Senate.

“Ultimately, the Senate needs to decide whether they were elected to govern and get things done or not,” Evers spokesperson Britt Cudaback said in a post on X.

Schoemann’s criticism of Evers is nothing new. He has long been a critic of the governor and has turned that criticism up since launching his campaign for governor.

But the recent criticism was also aimed at other Republicans who may jump into the 20206 governor’s race later this year.

“Nobody else in this race on the Republican side, being rumored to this point, has the executive leadership of skills and history to be able to show ‘This is how I’ve done it before, and here’s how we’ll do it Madison,’” Schoemann said. “The results in Washington County speak for themselves.”

Northwoods Congressman Tom Tiffany is also rumored to be looking to get into the Republican race. Before he went to Congress, Tiffany was a Republican lawmaker in Madison.

Businessman and veteran Bill Berrien is also on the short list of likely GOP candidates for 2026.

richard van buren

Richard Van Buren Arrested in Dodge County Dog’s Death, Sheriff Says

Richard Van Buren, the chairman of the Chester Town Board in Wisconsin, was arrested in the death of a golden retriever dog in rural...

Rep. Donovan, Greenfield Officials Outraged at Release of Accused Random Stabber

State Rep. Bob Donovan and top Greenfield officials are expressing outrage and concern over the release of a man who is accused of randomly...

Dodge County Dog’s Death Under Investigation by Wisconsin Sheriff

Update: Richard Van Buren, the chairman of the Town of Chester Board, has now been arrested. See the story here. The Dodge County Sheriff's Office...
Anthony LoCoco

Anthony LoCoco Running for WI Court of Appeals to Defend the Constitution

Note: Anthony LoCoco, of Waukesha, has worked for the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty and the Institute for Reforming Government. He is...

Milwaukee Alderman Voices Frustration at ‘Crumbling’ Roads, Massive Cost Estimate

The Common Council’s Finance and Personnel Committee heard from City Engineer Kevin Muhs today "about a newly released report from the Department of Public...

Oconomowoc Rotary Club Apologizes, Reverses Course After July 4 Parade Mess

The Oconomowoc Rotary Club has apologized for the mess surrounding its July 4 parade and will now allow political parties and elected representatives to...
Killed by Milwaukee Reckless Drivers Milwaukee Reckless Drivers Kill Box In Milwaukee Police

Milwaukee Police Officer Shot by Armed Suspect in Foot Chase, Department Says

Two ghost guns were recovered. A Milwaukee police officer was shot by an armed suspect who refused to drop his gun during a foot chase...

Milwaukee Police Association Raises Alarm on Low District 7 Staffing

The Milwaukee Police Association is raising the alarm about severely low staffing levels in District 7, one of the city's busiest police districts. The MPA,...
uw-madison Administrators at UW Schools

UW Employs 495 Foreign Nationals at Almost $43 Million a Year, But Won’t Release Their Names

With salaries ranging as high as $320,000 a year, are the foreign nationals getting taxpayer-funded jobs at UW instead of qualified U.S. citizens? The...
Governor’s Veto Powers Wisconsin Republicans Parental Bill of Rights Outlaw Child Sex Dolls Embrace Them Both Unemployment Reforms Wisconsin’s Professional Licensing Bail Reform Amendment wisconsin covid-19

Wisconsin Budget Negotiations Reach Impasse Between Evers, Legislature

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin budget negotiations have reached an impasse with both sides pointing fingers at the other in Wednesday afternoon statements.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said Republican Legislative leaders backed out of negotiations after he agreed to “an income tax cut targeting Wisconsin’s middle-class and working families and eliminating income taxes for certain retirees.” He said Republican leaders would not agree to “meaningful increased investments in child care, K-12 schools, and the University of Wisconsin System.”

Republican Assembly leaders said the two sides were "far apart. Senate leaders say Evers’ desires “extend beyond what taxpayers can afford.”

“The Joint Committee on Finance will continue using our long-established practices of crafting a state budget that contains meaningful tax relief and responsible spending levels with the goal of finishing on time,” said a statement from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Assembly Finance Co-Chairman Mark Born, R-Beaver Dam.

Evers said that there were meetings between the sides every day this week before the impasse.

“I told Republicans I’d support their half of the deal and their top tax priorities – even though they’re very similar to bills I previously vetoed – because I believe that’s how compromise is supposed to work, and I was ready to make that concession in order to get important things done for Wisconsin’s kids,” Evers said.

Senate Republican leadership said that good faith negotiations have occurred since April on a budget compromise.

“Both sides of these negotiations worked to find compromise and do what is best for the state of Wisconsin,” said a statement from Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, and Senate Joint Finance Co-Chairman Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green.

In early May, the Joint Committee on Finance took 612 items out of Gov. Tony Evers’ budget proposal, including Medicaid expansion in the state, department creations and tax exemptions.

Born previously estimated that Evers’ budget proposal would lead to $3 billion in tax increases over the two-year span.

Wisconsin Policy Forum estimated that the proposal would spend down more than $4 billion of the state’s expected $4.3 billion surplus if it is enacted.

hannah dugan

Milwaukee Police Refuse to Release NEW Hannah Dugan Body Cam Video, Citing Crime ‘Prevention,’ in Part

The Milwaukee Police Department has refused to release a new Hannah Dugan police body cam video, citing, in part, crime "prevention" and "detection" and...

DHS Puts 4 Wisconsin Cities & Counties on Formal Notice, Says They ‘Defy Federal Law’

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security placed two Wisconsin counties and two cities on notice on May 29, saying they are defying federal law...

DOJ Begins California Title IX Investigation Over ‘Trans’ Boys Dominating Girls’ Sports

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division announced it is investigating California for violating Title IX by allowing males to participate in female student sports.

“Title IX exists to protect women and girls in education,” said Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general for Civil Rights. “It is perverse to allow males to compete against girls, invade their private spaces, and take their trophies.”

In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning males from participating in female student sports, and he has threatened to block California's federal funding for continuing to defy his order. With California facing deficits in the tens of billions of dollars each year, it's unclear how the state would offset any losses or pauses in federal funding.

Notably, California Gov. Gavin Newsom hosted conservative pundit Charlie Kirk on his podcast and told Kirk that he thinks it’s “deeply unfair” that boys are participating in girls’ sports.

When asked later at a press conference what this means for state policy, Newsom demurred, painting the matter as a marginal, non-issue not worth his time.

“You're talking about a very small number of people, a very small number of athletes, and my responsibility is to address the pressing issues of our time,” said Newsom.

The California Interscholastic Federation, which governs student sports in California, has since responded to Trump’s threat by announcing a new pilot program to allow girls who otherwise would have qualified for sports finals had the finalist spots in girls’ sports not been taken by transgender-identifying boys to participate in said finals.

Title IX was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1972 to ensure that schools could not discriminate against female students. It requires they be provided with equal opportunities to engage in athletics, extracurriculars and education.

DOJ’s letter of interest says it is investigating whether California’s Assembly Bill 1266, which requires transgender-identifying students to be allowed to participate in sports consistent with their gender identities, violates Title IX.

“As a result of CIF’s policy, California’s top-ranked girls’ triple jumper, and second-ranked girls’ long-jumper, is a boy,” wrote the DOJ. “As recently as May 17, this male athlete was allowed to take winning titles that rightfully belong to female athletes in both events.”

“This male athlete will now be allowed to compete against those female athletes again for a state title in long, triple, and high jump,” continued the DOJ. “Other high school female athletes have alleged that they were likewise robbed of podium positions and spots on their teams after they were forced to compete against males.”

Should the DOJ find California is in violation of Title IX, it says it will “take appropriate action to eliminate that discrimination, including seeking injunctive relief.”

Untold: The Fall of Favre

REVIEW: The Despicable Netflix Hit Job on Brett Favre

In case you forgot, Michael Vick is a disgraced quarterback who spent time in prison for helping run a dogfighting ring where animals were...

Things My Father Taught Me [Up Against the Wall]

So guys, here’s a few things my father taught me that apparently a lot of younger guys didn’t have the opportunity to learn. Yes,...