Abstract
Abstract
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 established constitutional right.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987).
2.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
3.
Gates v. Collier, 501 F. 2d 1291 (1974).
4.
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
5.
Hope v. Pelzer, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 01-309 (June 27, 2002), Slip Opinion.
6.
Ort v. White, 813 F. 2d 318 (1987).
7.
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974).
8.
Shafritz, J., Rosenbloom, D., Riccucci, N., Naff, K., & Hyde, A. (2001 ). Personnel management in government (5th ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker.
9.
U.S. v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997).
10.
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999).
11.
Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975).