By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Renee Good’s death, Senator Ed Markey and Representative Ayanna Pressley are spearheading efforts to eliminate qualified immunity for federal law enforcement. They have updated the “Ending Qualified Immunity Act,” originally introduced five years prior, to allow victims to sue federal authorities for civil rights violations. This revised bill, targeting the 2026 legislative session, would remove the qualified immunity defense in such lawsuits. Senator Markey emphasized the urgency of the matter, citing concerns about impunity in cases involving federal agents.
Read the original article here
Massachusetts lawmakers are clearly signaling a desire for change, specifically calling for an end to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields government officials, including law enforcement, from liability in civil lawsuits unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. The idea is simple: if a police officer violates someone’s rights, they should be held accountable.
This isn’t just about punishment; it’s about shifting the balance of power and increasing transparency. The prevailing sentiment appears to be that those enforcing the law should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen, not a lower one. This sentiment stems from a need for increased accountability within law enforcement agencies. Qualified immunity, in essence, is seen as a shield that allows misconduct to go unpunished, and this leads to the call for its abolition.
One recurring solution is the implementation of mandatory individual liability insurance for law enforcement officers, much like doctors and nurses have. This would directly address financial accountability. Bad cops would become uninsurable, effectively making them unemployable. The responsibility for their actions would be placed squarely on their shoulders, as lawsuits would be directed at the officer, and payouts would come from their own pockets or their insurance policies. This would incentivize better behavior and weed out those who are not fit to serve.
Another element in the debate is the use of body cameras. The consensus is that they are essential, but their effectiveness hinges on consistent use. It’s often suggested that body cameras should be mandatory and always operational while an officer is on duty. If a camera is off or inoperable without a valid reason, the officer shouldn’t receive the benefit of the doubt, and any evidence from their actions would be inadmissible. Some propose that the camera’s operation should be tied to the officer’s schedule, ensuring they are always recording when on duty. Tampering with the camera would be a serious offense. This shift in the burden of proof would significantly enhance accountability.
Many also believe that police unions play a significant role in perpetuating the current issues. These groups, while often championing reasonable pay and benefits, have also been known to protect officers, sometimes moving them from department to department after wrongdoing. The idea is that it is a conflict of interest, as police unions often protect those who do things wrong, regardless of the severity of the act.
Beyond qualified immunity and insurance, the conversation extends to fundamental improvements in law enforcement. These include increased educational requirements, such as a degree in criminology, psychology, or sociology, raising hiring standards, providing better mental health support for officers, and focusing on specialized training. Many propose a shift away from making police the default first responders for every social issue, advocating for social workers and paramedics to handle certain calls, with the police providing support when and where needed.
The need for reform goes back to the origins of American policing. It’s often mentioned that the modern concept of “police” in America has origins in groups of deputized slave catchers, who, as a function of their positions, had little to no respect for the law. This history has led to a culture of impunity and a lack of accountability, which is why the call for ending qualified immunity is so strong. The call for change is not just about holding bad actors accountable. It’s about building public trust, promoting fairness, and fostering a system that truly serves and protects everyone.