TY - JOUR
T1 - Qualified immunity in limbo
T2 - Rights, procedure, and the social costs of damages litigation against public officials
AU - Noll, David L.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work is based on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA. Support for this work was provided by NASA through an award issued by JPL/Caltech. The authors would like to thank Elmar Körding for very useful discussions and Stephane Corbel for providing us with the data of GX 339−4. S. M. acknowledges helpful discussions with Mari Polletta. E. G. is supported by NASA through Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship award PF5-60037, issued by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for NASA under contract NAS8-03060.
PY - 2008/6
Y1 - 2008/6
N2 - Damages litigation against public officials implicates social costs that ordinary civil litigation between private parties does not. Litigation against public officials costs taxpayers money, may inhibit officials in the performance of their duties, and has the potential to reveal privileged information and decisionmaking processes. The doctrine of qualified immunity - that public officials are generally immune from civil liability for their official actions unless they have unreasonably violated a clearly established federal right - is designed to address these risks. The doctrine, however, demands an application of law to facts that, as a practical matter, requires substantial pretrial discovery. Federal courts have responded with a variety of novel procedural devices. This Note critiques those devices and suggests that courts confronted with a claim of qualified immunity should view their principal task as narrowing the universe of the plaintiff s claims, thus facilitating a discovery process structured around dispositive legal issues.
AB - Damages litigation against public officials implicates social costs that ordinary civil litigation between private parties does not. Litigation against public officials costs taxpayers money, may inhibit officials in the performance of their duties, and has the potential to reveal privileged information and decisionmaking processes. The doctrine of qualified immunity - that public officials are generally immune from civil liability for their official actions unless they have unreasonably violated a clearly established federal right - is designed to address these risks. The doctrine, however, demands an application of law to facts that, as a practical matter, requires substantial pretrial discovery. Federal courts have responded with a variety of novel procedural devices. This Note critiques those devices and suggests that courts confronted with a claim of qualified immunity should view their principal task as narrowing the universe of the plaintiff s claims, thus facilitating a discovery process structured around dispositive legal issues.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=47249117553&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=47249117553&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:47249117553
SN - 0028-7881
VL - 83
SP - 911
EP - 948
JO - New York University Law Review
JF - New York University Law Review
IS - 3
ER -