> The court can only interpret law, they can't reverse a law just because a majority of people don't like it.
The Supreme Court invented Qualified Immunity[1].
The law before that was very clear[2]:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations. It applies when someone acting 'under color of' state-level or local law has deprived a person of rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes."
QI doesn't contradict that law - it merely transfers liability from the individual to the state, which CAN still be sued. ...as we've seen many people sue police departments (rather than specific cops) for Civil Rights violations.
Also, QI is also in various State statutes of Tort law that protects workers from litigation when acting as employees of any corporation.
The Supreme Court invented Qualified Immunity[1].
The law before that was very clear[2]:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations. It applies when someone acting 'under color of' state-level or local law has deprived a person of rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#History_and...
[2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-section-19...