In two rulings Monday, the Supreme Court endorsed protections from lawsuits for police officers. Lower courts had allowed the excessive force suits to proceed, the Hill reports, one in Oklahoma and one in California. The justices overturned those decisions in summary rulings, without mention of any dissents. "All but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law" are protected by qualified immunity, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. Officers are safe from suits unless they can be shown to have violated "clearly established" rights that a reasonable person would be aware of, per CNBC.
In the California case, police were called to a home where a man with a chainsaw was threatening his girlfriend and her two children, who were barricaded in a room. Police said they spotted a knife in his pocket. One officer placed his knee on the man's neck for eight seconds during his arrest. An appeals court reinstated the suit, saying the officer should have known that precedent makes clear his actions amounted to excessive force. In the Oklahoma case, a woman reported that her ex-husband was intoxicated and wouldn't leave her garage. When he picked up a hammer as if to throw it at the officers, then refused to put it down, they shot and killed him.
Qualified immunity is a contentious issue in the debate over police legislation. Police say officers are entitled to it because they have to make quick decisions to defend themselves. Others say it allows officers to avoid accountability, per USA Today. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would limit qualified immunity, was approved by the Democratic-controlled House but not the Senate. Republicans introduced their own police bill, which made no mention of qualified immunity. Negotiations have halted, per the Insider. (More US Supreme Court stories.)
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
