Minnesota Civil Remedies Act: Bill Would Eliminate Qualified Immunity for Government Employees

The Minnesota Civil Remedies Act aims to provide compensation for harm, with government employees liable for damages if they violate rights under state or federal law.

In the wake of Operation Metro Surge, where for months, federal agents violated Minnesotan's civil liberties, there is new proposed legislation to end qualified immunity and create a new state-level cause of action.

Emma Pederson is the Director of Policy for Minnesota Justice Coalition (MJC) and Assistant Director of Reinvestigation Workgroup (RWG). She wrote the Minnesota Civil Remedies Act (MNCRA) which would allow individuals to sue government employees who violate their constitutional rights.

“Currently, you have to sue for these violations in federal court,” Emma said. “There are a lot of barriers to people in federal court, including qualified immunity, a special government protection given to these officials. Our bill would get rid of qualified immunity as a defense for this avenue to sue in state court.” 

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless a plaintiff can show not only that their constitutional rights were violated, but that the right was “clearly established” in prior case law with closely similar facts, which Emma says is a problem.

“Courts interpret that second prong of 'clearly established' so narrowly that even people with very serious constitutional violations have their cases dismissed.”

Courts often require plaintiffs to point to nearly identical precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court or their federal circuit. Emma referenced a Ninth Circuit case in Fresno, CA in which officers allegedly stole property during a search but were granted qualified immunity because no matching precedent existed.

Cases That Prompted the Bill

Travis Jordan was killed by two rookie Minneapolis Police Officers on November 9, 2018. Travis was suicidal. His girlfriend called Minneapolis non-emergency line for help. Her call was rerouted to 911. When officers arrived, they escalated Travis, provoking him to come outside unnecessarily. Travis had a knife, which he never raised above his waist or used in a threatening manner. Officers shot him seven times, including three times after Travis had fallen to the ground and the knife was thrown out of his reach. Source: Reinvestigation Workgroup

The proposed legislation was shaped in part by high-profile police shooting cases. Emma cited the 2018 killing of Travis Jordan by Minneapolis police. A district court initially denied qualified immunity for some of the shots fired after Travis was on the ground and no longer posed an immediate threat. But on appeal, the Eighth Circuit granted qualified immunity, ending the family’s case.

Kobe Dimock-Heisler was a 21-year-old autistic man who was shot and killed by Brooklyn Center Police Officers on August 31, 2019. Kobe’s grandparents, whom he lived with, had called 911 because they were worried about Kobe after they got into an argument and Kobe grabbed a knife and hammer. Kobe’s grandparents de-escalated him, and his grandfather called 911 to tell them not to come. They showed up anyways. Source: Reinvestigation Workgroup

She also referenced the 2019 killing of Kobe Heisler, a 21-year-old autistic man experiencing a mental health crisis, who was shot after Brooklyn Center officers responded to a call that had later been canceled. In that case as well, the family’s lawsuit ultimately failed.

In both instances, courts resolved the cases through qualified immunity rather than fully examining whether constitutional violations occurred.

“The court system exists to make things right,” Emma said. “Right now, it’s refusing to even decide whether someone’s rights were violated.”

Although police use-of-force cases often dominate the public conversation, the MNCRA applies to all government employees — state, local, and federal — acting under color of law.

Eliminating Immunity Defenses

According to Emma, qualified immunity fails to serve its stated purposes. It was originally intended to shield officials from burdensome litigation and to prevent hesitation in split-second decisions. Emma points out that cases invoking qualified immunity still undergo lengthy discovery and often last longer than traditional civil suits.

“It doesn’t protect officials from litigation,” she said. “It closes the courthouse doors to plaintiffs who have lawsuits that allege very serious constitutional violations.”

Another goal of the bill is to make civil rights cases more feasible for attorneys to take. Since overcoming qualified immunity often requires extensive upfront legal work, some lawyers decline cases they view as legally complex or unlikely to survive early dismissal.

“Families who have legally difficult cases have a much harder time finding an attorney because of qualified immunity,” said Emma. “It's a cost-benefit analysis of whether or not they're going to win and jump over the QI hurdle. Some attorneys can definitely afford to put that work in, but others can't.”

Removing that hurdle, Emma says, would incentivize attorneys, particularly smaller firms, to take more civil rights cases that might otherwise not get litigated.

Reps. Samakab Hussein and Kari Rehrauer authored bill for the House. Sens. Calvin Bahr, Eric Lucero and Sen. Nathan Wesenberg are carrying it on the Senate side. Despite a generally positive reception and meaningful discussion with lawmakers, Emma says it is unlikely the MNCRA is going to pass this legislative session—even so, the work continues. 

“We knew from the start that ending qualified immunity in Minnesota would be a marathon not a sprint. For the people of MJC and RWG, we really care first and foremost about starting a dialogue about government accountability and justice,” said Emma. “We’ve accomplished that this legislative session, and we are excited to continue having conversations around Minnesota about the MNCRA and the future of our civil liberties.”