Section 1983 authorizes private parties to enforce their federal constitutional rights against state and local officials and municipalities (42 U.S.C. §1983). However, the fact that a §1983 plaintiff establishes that the defendant violated her constitutionally protected rights does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff will obtain relief. This is because the law affords §1983 defendants numerous non-merits defenses.
The law of §1983 is permeated with an array of significant immunity defenses. Some officials, most notably judges, prosecutors and legislators, are usually shielded from personal liability under §1983 by absolute immunity. Most officials sued for monetary relief under §1983 are entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. Thus, for example, law enforcement and other executive officials sued for Fourth Amendment violations may assert qualified immunity. This defense is not as potent as absolute immunity, but nevertheless affords officials very substantial protection. The critical inquiry under qualified immunity is whether the defendant officer acted in an objectively reasonable manner, that is, whether the officer violated the plaintiff’s clearly established federal rights.1 In other words, an officer who violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, but not clearly established constitutional rights, will be shielded from liability and the plaintiff will be denied money damages.2
