Recalibrating Qualified Immunity: How Tanzin v. Tanvir, Taylor v. Riojas, and McCoy v. Alamu Signal the Supreme Court’s Discomfort with the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity
In December 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued its most important decision on qualified immunity since Harlow v. Fitzgerald, and the issue in the case did not even involve the doctrine. In the Court’s unanimous opinion in Tanzin v. Tanvir, which dealt with the interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Justice Thomas explicitly distanced the Court from the very type of policy reasoning used to create qualified immunity. He also embraced the availability of damages claims against government officials as historically justified and often necessary to vindicate individual rights and to check the government’s power. The Court’s decision in Tanvir—alongside those in Taylor v. Riojas and McCoy v. Alamu—offers the strongest signal in decades that the Court is ready to recalibrate its qualified immunity jurisprudence. While it is not time to celebrate the demise of qualified immunity just yet, this Article will discuss how the Court’s disposition of those cases reveals the Court is reconsidering both the foundations and applications of qualified immunity.
Related Cases

Immunity and Accountability | Private Property | SWAT Destruction
North Carolina SWAT Destruction
A North Carolina family is seeking to hold SWAT teams accountable for raiding the wrong home in April 2024.

First Amendment | First Amendment Retaliation | Immunity and Accountability
Atmore, Alabama Retaliation
Four residents of a small Alabama county were targeted for retaliation by a district attorney and sheriff. Now, they are suing with IJ to protect their constitutional rights.

Immunity and Accountability | SWAT Destruction
Martin v. United States
FBI agents raided the wrong home in suburban Atlanta. Now the federal government refuses to compensate the victims even though Congress passed a law permitting suits for damages caused by federal employees.