Congress moves to strip legal shield protecting police from civil rights suits
S. 1913 — Ending Qualified Immunity Act · Filed by Ed Markey (D-MA) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced May 22, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill removes qualified immunity—a legal doctrine that shields government officials from lawsuits for civil rights violations unless the violated right was 'clearly established' at the time. The bill amends Section 1983 of the Revised Statutes (the post-Civil War law allowing citizens to sue officials who violate their constitutional rights) to eliminate the good-faith and clearly-established-right defenses, making it easier for citizens to hold state and local officials accountable in court for rights violations.
Why we flagged it
The bill's sole operative mechanism is removing a judicial doctrine that shields government officials from liability. It is a straightforward civil-rights enforcement bill, not a tax measure, appropriation, or regulatory carve-out. The title and text align perfectly.
What the text implies
- Removal of qualified immunity may increase litigation costs for state and local governments, potentially shifting budgets away from services to legal defense and settlements.
- The bill applies retroactively to pending cases, which may reopen settled or dismissed cases and create a wave of litigation.
- Police departments and other agencies may face higher insurance premiums or may need to establish larger litigation reserves.
- Individual officials may face personal liability and may seek indemnification from their employers, creating pressure on municipal budgets.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Ordinary citizens gain a concrete remedy: the ability to sue government officials for constitutional violations without facing a high legal barrier that currently shields most defendants. This restores the original intent of Section 1983 and strengthens accountability for police misconduct, unlawful detention, and other official abuse. The cost—increased litigation exposure for officials—is a feature, not a bug, from a public-accountability standpoint.
Who stands to gain
- civil rights attorneys and plaintiff's bar
- litigation funding firms
Named in the bill
Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Revised Statutes, Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, Pierson v. Ray (1967), Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), state and local government officials, Congress
Where it stands
2 cosponsors: 1 Democrats, 1 Independents.
- May 22, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- May 22, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (3,602 characters) on Aug 15, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress moves to strip legal shield protecting police from civil rights suits” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s1913 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.