The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that it would not be hearing cases concerning gun rights and the controversial legal doctrine known as qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff’s rights, unless the violation is “clearly established.” It has come under fire during the ongoing protests against systemic racism and police brutality.
According to U.S. News, the specific case the Court looked and decided not to reexamine, a man alleged that police officers released a dog to apprehend him – biting him in the process – after he had already surrendered during a burglary.
Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting from the order, noted the lower court’s ruling when he wrote that “even if the officers’ conduct violated the Constitution, they were not liable because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right.”
At least four justices must vote to hear a case, according to Supreme Court procedures.
“I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence,” Thomas wrote.
The Supreme Court also dealt a blow to gun rights activists when it decided not to hear a case involving a New Jersey business owner who was denied a permit application to carry a handgun for self-defense. State law requires that an applicant “specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.” Thomas also dissented from the Court’s denial of certiorari for this case.
“Whatever one may think about the proper approach to analyzing Second Amendment challenges, it is clearly time for us to resolve the issue,” wrote Thomas, who was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his dissent.
