OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (Jan. 28, 2024) – A bill filed in the Oklahoma Senate would create a process to sue state and local government agencies in state court that employ officials accused of taking actions that violate constitutional rights without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.
Sen. Julie Daniels filed Senate Bill 1811 (SB1811) on Feb. 5. Under the proposed law, “a government employer shall be liable for an injury caused by an act or omission of a government employee who, under color of law, violates a right under the Constitution of this state or the United States.”
An action under this section would not be subject to:
- a. common law doctrines of immunity,
- b. federally-recognized doctrines of qualified immunity,
- c. sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, custom, or policy, or
- d. statutory immunities and limitations on liability or damages.”
Importantly, under SB1811 it would be the government employer, not the employee, who would be found financially liable for violations under this act. The finding by a court that an employee violated a constitutional right would be considered “per se evidence that the government employer has just cause for termination of the employment of the government employee.”
“The proper defendant in an action under this section is the government employer and not a government employee. A government employee shall not be found financially liable for a violation of a right under the Constitution of this state or the United States.”
SB1811 would establish a three-year statute of limitations for violations under the act.
The bill includes language that would restrain the removal of a case to federal court.
“An action under this section arises out of state law, with jurisdiction in the judicial system of this state pursuant to the requirements of Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes and other applicable laws of this state.”
THE PROCESS
Typically, people sue police and other government employees for using excessive force or other types of misconduct through the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air, making it nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers responsible for actions taken in the line of duty. In order to move ahead with a suit, the plaintiff must establish that it was “clearly established” that the officer’s action was unconstitutional. The “clearly established” test erects an almost insurmountable hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights.
Passage of SB1811 would create an alternative path in state court with no qualified immunity hurdle to clear.
Similar laws have been passed in Colorado and New Mexico, and in 2021, California closed some of the qualified immunity loopholes in its state law.
IN PRACTICE
It remains unclear how the state legal process would play out in practice.
The first question is whether people will actually utilize the state courts instead of the federal process. Under the original constitutional system, it would have never been a federal issue to begin with. Regulation of police powers was clearly delegated to the states, not the federal government. But with the advent of the incorporation doctrine, people reflexively run to federal courts. But by removing the qualified immunity hurdle, it should incentivize people to take advantage of the state system.
The second question is if police officers will be able to transfer cases to federal jurisdiction to take advantage of qualified immunity.
Language in SB1811 could open that door. The proposed law would allow people to sue in state court for violations of the U.S. Constitution or laws of the United States. All matters regarding the U.S. Constitution or federal law typically get remanded to federal courts. Language in SB1811 attempts to block this.
To avoid this possibility completely, plaintiffs would have to sue based solely on the Oklahoma Constitution and its bill of rights. The only way to avoid federal jurisdiction and ensure federal qualified immunity doesn’t come into play would be to limit the suit to state constitutional issues.
Even if the suit is focused on state law and the Oklahoma constitution, state and local law enforcement officers working on joint state/federal task forces would almost certainly be able to move the case to federal court. They are effectively treated as federal agents.
One attorney told the Tenth Amendment Center that it might be possible for officers to have their case removed to federal court to consider U.S. constitutional ramifications. But he said even then, he thinks federal courts would have to respect the state law prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense. The federal court would likely have to apply the state law as the state intended, even though the federal court might well be able to decide whether or not a U.S. constitutional violation had taken place.
Other lawyers we talked to said it wasn’t clear to them that the federal courts would have to honor the state statute. It is possible that the federal court could simply decide its jurisdiction supersedes state law and hear the case under the federal process, including the application of qualified immunity. Only time will tell how the process will play out in practice. Regardless, the state process will make it more difficult for police to simply side-step civil suits by declaring sovereign immunity upfront.
MOVING FORWARD
The Supreme Court shows no interest in rolling back its qualified immunity doctrine. In fact, the High Court recently rejected several cases that would have allowed it to revisit the issue. For instance, the SCOTUS let stand an Eleventh Circuit decision granting immunity to a police officer who shot a ten-year-old child in the back of the knee, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t threatening anyone.
Congress could prohibit qualified immunity. A bill sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) a couple of years ago would have done just that, but it was never taken up. Congress does not have a good track record on reining in government power.
The best path forward is to bypass the federal system as Colorado has already done.
Other states should follow their lead and create state processes to hold their police officers accountable. With the evolution of qualified immunity, the federal process is an abject failure. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote in the 1986 case Malley v. Briggs, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Reuters called it “a highly effective shield in thousands of lawsuits seeking to hold cops accountable for using excessive force.”
Attorney and activist Dave Roland called on Missouri to adopt a similar process in an op-ed published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
A consensus has developed — crossing all party and ideological lines — for the proposition that qualified immunity is an evil that should be undone. At the federal level either the Supreme Court or Congress could undo it, but thus far neither has seen fit to act. Justice in Missouri, however, does not need to wait on Washington — the Legislature can and should adopt a Missouri statute that allows citizens to sue government officials who have violated citizens’ constitutional rights.
WHAT’S NEXT
SB1811 will be officially introduced and referred to a committee when the Oklahoma legislature convenes on Feb. 5. It must get a hearing and pass the committee by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
- Rhode Island Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Legalize Raw Milk Sales; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme - April 15, 2024
- Minnesota Bill Would Establish State Process to End Qualified Immunity - March 18, 2024
- Minnesota Bill Would Expand Raw Milk Sales Despite Federal Prohibition Scheme - March 13, 2024