PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 16, 2025
Qualified Immunity Act of 2025
This bill provides statutory authority for qualified immunity for law enforcement officers in civil cases involving constitutional violations.
Current law provides a statutory civil cause of action against state and local government actors (e.g., law enforcement officers) for violations of constitutional rights, also known as Section 1983 lawsuits. The Supreme Court has also found an implied cause of action against federal law enforcement officers in certain situations (e.g., Fourth Amendment violations), also known as Bivens lawsuits. However, under the judicial doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary duties are generally shielded from civil liability, unless their actions violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill provides statutory authority for these principles with respect to law enforcement officers. Specifically, under the bill, law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) at the time of the alleged violation, the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established or the state of the law was not sufficiently clear that any reasonable officer would have known that the conduct was unconstitutional; or (2) a court has held that the specific conduct at issue is constitutional.
The bill applies to federal, state, and local law enforcement officers. It also specifies that law enforcement agencies and local governments may not be held liable if their officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
People & committees
Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.122 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.122 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.122 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.122 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.