Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Does the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) still protect individuals from egregious constitutional violations—or has it been gutted by the doctrine of qualified immunity?
In this episode of Rightly Decided, we take a close look at Villareal v. Alaniz, a case the Supreme Court declined to hear, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s sharp dissent from that denial.
Our discussion unpacks qualified immunity from soup to nuts. We then turn to the Fifth Circuit’s application of qualified immunity and to Justice Sotomayor’s broader critique of how the doctrine operates in practice. We examine her argument that qualified immunity increasingly functions as a near-absolute bar to relief, even where constitutional violations are plausibly alleged, and consider what this means for civil rights enforcement, police accountability, and the rule of law.
Along the way, we place Villareal in the Court’s larger qualified immunity jurisprudence, assess whether Sotomayor’s concerns are borne out in lower-court doctrine, and explore the implications of the Court’s continued reluctance to revisit or clarify the defense.
Tune in for a rigorous, grounded conversation at the intersection of constitutional theory, civil procedure, and real-world effects.
In this episode of Rightly Decided, we take a close look at Villareal v. Alaniz, a case the Supreme Court declined to hear, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s sharp dissent from that denial.
Our discussion unpacks qualified immunity from soup to nuts. We then turn to the Fifth Circuit’s application of qualified immunity and to Justice Sotomayor’s broader critique of how the doctrine operates in practice. We examine her argument that qualified immunity increasingly functions as a near-absolute bar to relief, even where constitutional violations are plausibly alleged, and consider what this means for civil rights enforcement, police accountability, and the rule of law.
Along the way, we place Villareal in the Court’s larger qualified immunity jurisprudence, assess whether Sotomayor’s concerns are borne out in lower-court doctrine, and explore the implications of the Court’s continued reluctance to revisit or clarify the defense.
Tune in for a rigorous, grounded conversation at the intersection of constitutional theory, civil procedure, and real-world effects.
Creators and Guests
Host
Guest
Guest
Clayton Calvin
Clayton Calvin is an attorney with the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for the American Future. He has worked on a variety of constitutional matters, focusing mainly on separation-of-powers and federalism issues and narrowing the scope of administrative power. Prior to joining the Foundation, he worked with Colorado’s Independence Institute on constitutional and budget issues, and worked independently to limit qualified immunity and to defend the constitutional right to earn a living.
What is Rightly Decided?
Rightly Decided is a legal podcast from the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for the American Future, whose attorneys defend the Constitution through legal opposition to government overreach.