Immunity doctrines shield government officials and workers from accountability by denying victims of constitutional abuse a day in court. This means that many constitutional rights have no remedies. Defenders of immunity doctrines say that this is a price worth paying because immunities weed out futile, insubstantial, or meritless lawsuits that would grind the government to a halt. But three recent IJ victories prove that’s not true. 

The Supreme Court created immunities—including qualified, prosecutorial, and judicial immunity—with a policy goal of reducing the number of “insubstantial suits.” These immunities were needed, the Court believed, to ensure that the government and its workers were not overwhelmed by the costs and burdens of trial. But courts have plenty of other mechanisms to dispose of meritless claims quickly and efficiently. As a result, immunities often bar strong claims, not weak ones.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in a trio of winning IJ cases. In each, a government worker hid behind immunity. But once IJ tore down that immunity, our clients quickly received a favorable settlement or jury verdict.

You will probably recall our case representing Mario Rosales. After legally passing a truck in New Mexico, Mario was chased to his home by a road-raging stranger. That stranger later revealed himself to be an off-duty police officer and pointed a gun at Mario. Although the officer was eventually convicted of two felonies for the incident, a federal trial court invoked qualified immunity to dismiss Mario’s case. But IJ appealed, and the 10th Circuit tossed the immunity. Soon after, the defendants settled.

Or look to IJ’s case with Waylon Bailey. Louisiana police raided Waylon’s home and charged him with the crime of terrorism because Waylon made a zombie joke on Facebook. As in Mario’s case, a federal trial court shielded the officers with qualified immunity. But IJ again appealed, and the 5th Circuit reversed. With the immunity hurdle out of his way, Waylon took his case to trial, and a jury awarded him damages.

Finally, there is our case on behalf of Matt Gibson. After a West Virginia judge led an unconstitutional search party through Matt’s home, he sued. With the help of friend-of-IJ John Bryan (aka The Civil Rights Lawyer on YouTube), Matt defeated judicial immunity in the trial court. But the judge appealed. IJ defended the win in the 4th Circuit, and the appeals court confirmed that the judge could not claim immunity. Just like Mario and Waylon, Matt was able to quickly receive a remedy once immunity was no longer an obstacle, and the judge settled the case.

These settlements and jury awards are relatively modest—for instance, Matt received $200,000—but they are very significant for our clients. Ordinary people who have suffered extraordinary government abuse often wait years for a court to recognize that their rights are meaningful and deserve to be enforced. For them, the resolution of their case is about obtaining a reasonable amount of compensation, yes. But those monetary damages symbolize something even more important: Finally, they are vindicated.

What IJ’s work in these cases shows is that immunity does not protect government officials and officers from frivolous claims. It protects them from meritorious, substantial, and otherwise-winning claims. If given a day in court, victims of government abuse like Mario, Waylon, and Matt can and will vindicate their rights. 

Many victims of government abuse have been denied that opportunity thanks to immunity doctrines. But, because every constitutional right deserves a remedy, IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability will see to it that immunity doctrines no longer stand in the way.

Patrick Jaicomo is an IJ senior attorney and a leader of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability.