The Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026 amends 42 U.S.C. 1983 to strip the traditional qualified immunity defenses from lawsuits alleging deprivation of constitutional rights and explicitly brings Federal law enforcement officers acting under federal authority within the statute's scope. The text inserts a new subsection that declares that good-faith belief, reasonable belief of lawfulness, uncertainty about whether rights were "clearly established," or inability to know the law are not defenses in any action pending on or filed after the statute's enactment.
This is a direct statutory repudiation of the judge-made qualified immunity doctrine and a potentially consequential expansion of civil liability exposure for officers at all levels. Compliance officers, municipal insurers, federal agencies, and defense counsel will need to reassess litigation strategy, indemnification practices, training, and budgeting if the bill becomes law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 1983 by (1) adding subsection (b) that removes four specified defenses from actions alleging constitutional deprivations and (2) expanding subsection (a) to name Federal law enforcement officers acting under federal authority as persons who may be sued under the statute. It applies to suits pending on or filed after enactment.
Who It Affects
State and local law enforcement officers, Federal law enforcement officers, municipalities and federal agencies that employ them, municipal and governmental liability insurers, civil-rights plaintiffs and their lawyers, and defense counsel handling Section 1983 litigation.
Why It Matters
By statutorily eliminating the established immunity defenses, the bill changes early-dismissal and summary-judgment dynamics in civil-rights cases and likely increases settlement pressure, discovery burdens, and potential payouts. Including federal officers under Section 1983 raises novel federal-liability and sovereign-immunity questions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill performs two concrete statutory edits. First, it redesignates the existing opening clause of 42 U.S.C. 1983 as subsection (a) and then adds a new subsection (b) that flatly declares certain defenses unavailable in suits under the statute.
The four defenses the bill removes are (i) that the defendant acted in good faith, (ii) that the defendant believed their conduct lawful (whether that belief was reasonable or not), (iii) that the constitutional right was not "clearly established," and (iv) that the state of the law made it unreasonable to expect the defendant to know whether their conduct was lawful. Those enumerated defenses are often the core of what courts have called qualified immunity; the bill eliminates them as defenses for both pending and newly filed cases.
Second, the bill changes the people who can be sued under Section 1983 by inserting language that explicitly covers "every Federal law enforcement officer who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the United States," alongside State and local actors. That textual addition is significant because Section 1983 has traditionally been used against state actors; explicitly naming federal officers attempts to create a statutory pathway for civil suits against federal law enforcement personnel under the same statutory vehicle.Importantly, the bill does not purport to create new causes of action outside Section 1983, nor does it amend the substantive elements plaintiffs must prove (for example, that a person acting under color of law deprived someone of rights secured by the Constitution).
It also does not alter other immunity regimes (such as absolute immunity for judges or some prosecutorial functions), nor does it change statutory remedies available under 1983—damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees remain governed by preexisting law. What is new is that defendants can no longer invoke the listed defenses to avoid liability, which will change litigation timing (fewer immunity-based early dismissals), defense strategy, and the risk calculus for settlements and indemnity.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 1983 by inserting a new subsection (b) that makes four specific defenses unavailable in any action pending on, or filed after, the date of enactment.
Those four defenses the statute removes are: good faith, a (reasonable or unreasonable) belief that conduct was lawful, that the constitutional right was not 'clearly established,' and that the defendant could not reasonably have known the law.
The statute expressly applies its removal-of-defense rule to suits pending at enactment as well as suits filed afterward, rather than only to future conduct or filings.
Section 3 edits the statutory language of Section 1983 to add federal law enforcement officers acting under federal statutes, regulations, customs, or usages to the set of persons who may be sued under the statute.
The bill leaves intact Section 1983's existing remedial framework and the statute's prerequisite elements (deprivation of rights under color of law); it targets defenses that courts have used to dispose of cases before trial.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the "Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026." The short title has no operative effect but signals the bill's goal: to abolish qualified immunity as a defense in civil-rights litigation under Section 1983.
Amend 42 U.S.C. 1983—designate (a) and add (b) removing listed defenses
This provision formally inserts a parenthetical (a) before the existing opening clause of Section 1983 and appends a new subsection (b) that disallows four specific defenses in any action under Section 1983. Practically, that means a court can no longer dismiss or insulate an officer from liability on the basis that the officer acted in good faith, that they believed their conduct lawful, that the right was not 'clearly established,' or that the applicable law was too unclear for the officer to know whether their conduct was lawful. The language applies to suits pending on enactment as well as to newly filed suits, which avoids a pure prospective-only application and invites litigation over retroactivity and related constitutional questions.
Expand Section 1983 coverage to federal law enforcement officers
This amendment inserts explicit statutory language bringing "every Federal law enforcement officer who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the United States" within the persons subject to suit under Section 1983. Mechanically, the bill does this by adding that phrase before the statutory verb 'subjects.' That textual inclusion attempts to place federal officers in the same Section 1983 framework historically used against state actors, raising questions about interplay with sovereign immunity doctrines, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and existing jurisprudence about whether and how damages suits against federal officers are actionable.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Plaintiffs alleging constitutional violations: Removing the listed defenses increases the likelihood that claims will survive early motions to dismiss or summary judgment and raises plaintiffs' leverage in settlement and trial.
- Civil-rights attorneys and public-interest organizations: The change expands the toolkit for seeking damages and injunctive relief and may increase case volume and fee opportunities under existing fee-shifting provisions of Section 1983.
- Communities seeking police accountability: Victims of alleged misconduct and advocacy groups gain a more direct statutory route to hold officers (including federal officers) individually accountable in civil court.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual law enforcement officers: Officers face heightened personal litigation risk because the bill removes common defenses that routinely produced early case dismissals.
- Municipalities, federal agencies, and insurers: Governments and their insurers will likely face higher litigation costs, settlement payouts, and insurance premium pressure as more claims proceed past immunity-stage dismissal.
- Federal agencies and the Department of Justice: Agencies will confront novel legal exposure and may need to revise indemnification, training, and operational policies to mitigate increased liability risk.
- Courts and litigators: The judiciary and litigators will see heavier caseloads and longer, more fact-intensive pretrial disputes because immunity will no longer be a threshold gatekeeping doctrine.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill forces a classic trade-off: it prioritizes individual accountability and remedies for constitutional harms by removing immunity defenses, but in doing so it increases litigation exposure, potential chilling effects on split-second policing decisions, and fiscal pressure on government employers and insurers—forcing a choice between stronger remedies for victims and predictable operational capacity for law enforcement.
The bill resolves a doctrinal question—whether qualified immunity should remain judge-made—but raises thorny implementation issues. Applying the statute to suits pending on enactment invites retroactivity challenges: defendants will argue vested expectations and reliance interests, while plaintiffs will contend that statutory changes to defenses are permissible.
Courts will also confront how to reconcile the statute with absolute immunities (which the bill does not address) and with the distinctions between personal-capacity suits, official-capacity suits, and existing remedies against the United States under other statutes.
Adding federal law enforcement officers into Section 1983 creates legal friction with existing federal-liability frameworks. Section 1983 historically targets state action; inserting federal officers may spur litigation over whether Section 1983 can impose damages liability on federal employees without running afoul of sovereign immunity, the FTCA's exclusive remedies in some contexts, or the line of cases that created Bivens remedies.
The text leaves open whether the United States itself remains immune, how indemnification will work, and whether this statutory path will survive constitutional challenges rooted in separation of powers or due process. Those unresolved questions will determine how effective and broad the bill's accountability mechanism proves in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.