Who carries the burden to prove the absence of qualified immunity?

The burden to prove the absence of qualified immunity lies with the plaintiff. In a legal context, qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—such as the right to free speech, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures—committed while they are performing their official duties, unless the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

When a defendant raises the issue of qualified immunity in a case, it effectively shifts the responsibility to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant's actions were not just a violation of rights, but that these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. This means the plaintiff must provide enough evidence to overcome the presumption of immunity, essentially proving that the defendant's conduct was unreasonable under established legal standards.

Understanding the nature of qualified immunity is crucial in law enforcement and civil rights litigation, as it plays a significant role in determining accountability and the scope of protection for law enforcement personnel. Therefore, recognizing that the plaintiff has the burden to prove the absence of qualified immunity is essential for navigating this area of law effectively.