Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 13, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, making it easier to hold them civilly liable for constitutional and statutory violations.
What it actually does
This bill amends 42 U.S.C. 1983 to explicitly remove qualified immunity as a defense for federal, state, or local law enforcement officers in civil actions. It specifies that good faith, belief in lawful conduct, or the lack of clearly established rights cannot be used as defenses. It also clarifies that federal law enforcement officers acting under federal authority are subject to civil actions under this section.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that qualified immunity shields officers from accountability, making it difficult for victims of misconduct to seek justice. They contend that its removal would deter abuses of power, restore public trust, and ensure that individuals whose rights are violated can effectively pursue civil remedies.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that abolishing qualified immunity would expose law enforcement officers to frivolous lawsuits, hinder their ability to perform duties effectively, and make it difficult to recruit and retain officers. They contend it would lead to officers being overly cautious, impairing their ability to respond decisively in critical situations.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for quick comprehension by any reader.
Section 2, amending 42 U.S.C. 1983(b)
Abolition of Qualified Immunity Defense
This provision explicitly states that in any civil action brought against a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the defense of qualified immunity is removed. Specifically, officers cannot claim they acted in good faith, believed their conduct was lawful, or that the violated rights were not 'clearly established' at the time of the incident. This applies to all pending and future cases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for accountability, ensuring that officers who violate rights face consequences and that victims can obtain justice. They believe it will deter misconduct and restore public trust.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision will make officers hesitant to act decisively, fearing personal liability. They argue it could lead to an exodus of officers and make recruitment difficult, ultimately harming public safety.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for greater law enforcement accountability and victim redress against concerns about officer morale, recruitment, and the potential for increased litigation costs for officers or their employing agencies.
Section 3, amending 42 U.S.C. 1983(a)
Inclusion of Federal Law Enforcement Officers
This provision amends 42 U.S.C. 1983 to explicitly include federal law enforcement officers acting 'under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the United States' within the scope of individuals against whom civil actions can be brought for rights violations. This codifies the ability to sue federal officers under this statute, similar to state and local officers.