Hope v. Pelzer

• Published date: 01 September 2003
• Date: 01 September 2003
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X03252960
• Author: David H. Rosenbloom
• Subject Matter: Other

LEGAL BRIEF
REVIEW OF
Rosenbloom / PUBLIC
LEGAL PERSONNEL
BRIEF
ADMINISTRATION / Sept. 2003
ARTICLE
10.1177/0734371X03252960
Hope v. Pelzer
Raising the Bar for Public Administrators’
Qualified Immunity for Constitutional Torts
DAVID H. ROSENBLOOM
American University
When engaged in executive functions, public administrators at all levels of the
U.S. government have had qualified immunity in federal civil suits against
alleged violations of individuals’constitutional rights. Hope v. Pelzer now places
a heavier responsibility on public administrators to learn the constitutional law
governing their official actions. This legal brief serves to inform readers about the
new standard that Hope sets for determining what constitutes a clearly estab-
lished constitutional right.
Keywords:
qualified immunity; fair warning standard; constitutional tort;
Hope v. Pelzer; Eighth Amendment
Formorethanaquartercentury,publicadministratorsengagedinexecu-
tive functions at all levels of government in the United States have had
qualified immunity in federal civil suits generated by their alleged violations
of individuals’ constitutional rights (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,
1971; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 1974; Wood v. Strickland, 1975). Qualified immu-
nity protects public administrators from suit and therefore financial liability
for such violations, known as constitutional torts. The Supreme Court estab-
lished the contemporary standard for qualified immunity in 1982 by holding
that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are
shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not vio-
late clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known” (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 1982, p. 818). The Court further
defined the meaning of clearly established in several subsequent cases. Most
recently, in Hope v. Pelzer (2002), it placed a heavier responsibility on public
administrators to learn the constitutional law governing their official actions.
The purpose of this legal brief is to alert readers to Hope’s new standard for
determining what constitutes a clearly established constitutional right.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 23, No. 3 September 2003 255-261
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X03252960
© 2003 Sage Publications
255

---

256
REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION / Sept. 2003
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
Qualified immunity is immunity from suit not just being assessed with
damages. It is often established in a simplified, nonjury legal action called a
summary judgment, which is appropriate only when there is no significant
factual dispute. The sole questions for the judges are whether public admin-
istrators could be said to have violated clearly established constitutional
rights and if so, whether they were rights of which a reasonable person
would have known. Either party may appeal a summary judgment decision.
However, once a summary judgment entitling administrators to qualified
immunity becomes final, it precludes subjecting them to a civil trial in fed-
eral court for the constitutional torts at issue. Administrators may also pre-
vail on the basis of qualified immunity when cases go straight to trial.
Qualified immunity is of considerable importance to public personnel
administration. First, it calls for employee training throughout much of the
public sector because, in the Supreme Court’s words, “a reasonably compe-
tent public official should know the law governing his conduct” (Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 1982, p. 819). Public administrators’ liability for their constitu-
tional torts is personal. Their...