Also known as: clearly-established law · clearly established · qualified immunity · harlow standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A benchmark used to assess whether a government official may claim qualified immunity from civil liability for alleged violations of constitutional or statutory rights. The standard asks whether the right at issue was sufficiently clear at the time of the challenged conduct that a reasonable official would have understood the action to violate it.
Presidential aide Clifford Cox orders surveillance on a domestic political opponent without national-security justification. When sued under section 1983, Cox moves to dismiss on absolute-immunity grounds. The court denies the motion because the conduct falls outside the narrow category of discretionary functions tied to presidential foreign-affairs decisions, leaving only qualified immunity available.
Former President Charles Cunningham fires a White House employee who had testified before Congress about budget overruns. The employee sues for retaliation. The court holds that the President enjoys absolute immunity for acts within the outer perimeter of official duties even if the conduct allegedly violated clearly established rights.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Detainee Cecilia Cabrera alleges that Attorney General Ashcroft directed his arrest solely because of his religion. The complaint contains no facts showing that any clearly established prohibition barred the Attorney General from the specific actions taken. The court dismisses the claim because the pleadings fail to overcome the qualified-immunity defense.
Social worker Claire Campbell follows a city policy that separates children from parents without individualized hearings. A parent sues the city under section 1983. The court permits the claim to proceed because the policy itself constitutes an official municipal act that can violate clearly established due-process rights.
Caseworker Caitlin Crowley learns that a child is being abused by a parent but takes no action. After the child suffers permanent injury, the guardian sues. The court grants qualified immunity because no clearly established constitutional duty required the state to protect the child from private violence.
Craft-store chain Crown Pharmaceuticals refuses to provide certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds and is sued by the government. The company asserts a statutory right under RFRA. The court finds the right clearly established at the time of the refusal and denies the government officials qualified immunity.
Courts look primarily to Supreme Court precedent. Some circuits also consider their own published decisions when the Supreme Court has not spoken directly on point.
Supporting sources
No. After Harlow the inquiry is purely objective and asks only whether a reasonable official would have known the conduct violated established rights.
Supporting sources
Presidential aides receive only qualified immunity unless their acts involve discretionary functions in sensitive areas of national concern closely tied to presidential decision-making.
Supporting sources
Federal habeas relief is unavailable under 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d)(1) if the state decision is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.
Supporting sources
…Tract, so long as public use was limited to pass and repass lateral access along the shore." Ibid. California therefore has clearly established that the power of exclusion for which appellants seek compensation simply is not a strand in the bundle of appellants' property rights, and appellants have never acted as if it were. Given…