Featured · Supreme Court of the United States
Eleven years of litigation. One unsigned opinion.
Shela Linton spent two decades organizing for racial justice in Vermont. When an officer injured her at a peaceful healthcare sit-in, she did what the law invites: she sued. In March 2026, the Supreme Court ended her case without oral argument — and made the doctrine that stopped her even harder to overcome.
Zorn v. Linton · No. 25-297 · 146 S. Ct. 926 · Decided Mar. 23, 2026 · Per curiam
Read the full analysisThe doctrine, in one minute
What qualified immunity actually requires
Qualified immunity is a judge-made defense to civil-rights lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the Reconstruction-era statute that lets people sue state officials who violate their constitutional rights. To get past it, a plaintiff must win both prongs of a test the Supreme Court built in 1982:
A constitutional violation
The official’s conduct violated a constitutional right — for example, the Fourth Amendment’s bar on excessive force.
“Clearly established” law
A prior court decision already held that materially similar conduct, in materially similar circumstances, was unconstitutional — with what the Court calls a “high degree of specificity.”
The catch
Since Pearson v. Callahan (2009), courts may skip Prong I entirely and dismiss on Prong II alone. When courts never rule on whether conduct was unconstitutional, the law never becomes “clearly established” — so the next plaintiff loses for the same reason. The test can feed its own failure.
How we got here
A doctrine built case by case
-
1871
Congress passes § 1983
Enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act, giving newly freed Black Americans a federal remedy against state officials who violated their rights. The statute contains no immunity language.
-
1967
Pierson v. Ray
The Supreme Court reads a “good faith” defense into § 1983 — in a case brought by clergy arrested for trying to use a segregated bus-terminal waiting room in Jackson, Mississippi.
-
1982
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
Good faith is replaced with an objective test: officials are immune unless they violated “clearly established” law. The modern doctrine is born.
-
1989
Graham v. Connor
Excessive-force claims are judged by “objective reasonableness” under the totality of the circumstances — a standard that makes every case fact-bound, and every precedent easy to distinguish.
-
2009
Pearson v. Callahan
Courts gain discretion to grant immunity without ever deciding whether the Constitution was violated — slowing the development of the very precedent Prong II demands.
-
2026
Zorn v. Linton
In a per curiam reversal, the Court holds that circuit precedent on pain-compliance techniques wasn’t specific enough to put an officer on notice — reaffirming that plaintiffs need near-identical prior cases to proceed. Three justices dissent.
Take action
Reform is a policy choice
Qualified immunity was created by courts — which means legislatures can change it. Congress can amend § 1983; states can open their own courts to civil-rights claims without the defense, as Colorado did in 2020.
Tell Congress
The Ending Qualified Immunity Act has been introduced in successive Congresses to abolish the defense in § 1983 suits. Find your senators and representative and tell them where you stand.
Find your members of Congress →Push your state
States including Colorado and New Mexico have created state-law civil-rights claims where qualified immunity is not a defense. State legislatures are the most active front in this fight.
Find your state legislature →Follow the docket
Doctrine changes one case at a time — and public attention on those cases matters. Read the record here, share it, and cite primary sources when you do.
Read The Docket →