Understanding The Legal Repercussions Of Violating The Constitution

The constitution is a set of instructions that outline the organizations, authorities, and limitations on government activities. While the constitution can only be violated by a governmental entity, individuals exercising responsibility for that entity can also indirectly violate it. Violating the constitution is not a criminal offense, and there is no punishment for doing so. However, if an individual's constitutional rights are violated, they may sue for civil liberties. Additionally, federal laws like Section 1983 hold state and local government officials liable for monetary damages if they have violated constitutional rights.

Explore related products

Remedies for Human Rights Violations (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law, Series Number 27)

$56.46 $59

The Violation of a Constitutional Right.

$15.75

Ending Impunity for International Law Violations: Palestinian Bedouins and the Risk of Forced Displacement

$115

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Broken State, Collapse of Law, Human Rights Violations, Veil of Injustice and Constitutional Smokescreens—A Case ... against a Postcolonial Dictatorship

$3.99 $24.99

Accountability, International Business Operations and the Law: Providing Justice for Corporate Human Rights Violations in Global Value Chains (Globalization: Law and Policy)

$42.55 $55.99

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$75.91 $345

There is no punishment for violating the Constitution

The Constitution is a set of instructions that outline the organizations, authorities, and limitations on government activities. It restricts the powers of federal and state governments, outlining what they can and cannot do. However, despite the existence of these rules, there is no punishment for violating the Constitution.

The Constitution does not apply to private person-to-person affairs. Only a governmental entity can violate the Constitution, or an individual acting on behalf of and exercising responsibility for that governmental entity. As private citizens, individuals do not have the power to violate the Constitution. While the Constitution can restrict what governments do, it does not restrict what individuals do. Congress can pass laws that restrict individual actions, but a law is not the Constitution.

While there is no punishment for violating the Constitution, there may be consequences. If a government official violates an individual's constitutional rights, they can be held liable for monetary damages in federal court under Section 1983, a federal law enacted in 1871. However, the Supreme Court created a loophole with qualified immunity, which makes it difficult to hold government officials personally liable for wrongdoing.

Despite this, there have been instances where individuals have successfully sued government entities for violating their constitutional rights. For example, Almighty Supreme Born Allah sued jail officials, claiming that his treatment during pretrial detention, where he spent over six months in solitary confinement, violated his constitutional rights. Four federal judges agreed with him, yet he lost his case due to qualified immunity.

In conclusion, while there is no explicit punishment for violating the Constitution, there may be legal and financial consequences for government entities and officials found to have infringed upon the constitutional rights of individuals. However, loopholes like qualified immunity often stand in the way of justice and accountability.

Section 1983 holds government officials liable for violating constitutional rights

In the United States, the constitution is a set of instructions about the organisations, authorities, and limitations on government activities. Only a governmental entity can violate the constitution, or an individual exercising responsibility for that entity.

Section 1983 of the United States Code holds government officials liable for violating constitutional rights. This federal law has been in place since 1871, originally enacted to stop law enforcement from ignoring the lynching of newly freed Black citizens. Section 1983 allows individuals to seek monetary damages when their federally protected rights are infringed upon, instead of relying on court injunctions to remedy the violations. This includes rights outlined in the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.

Section 1983 also serves as protection against discrimination related to public sector employment based on race, sex, colour, national origin, gender identity/expression, or religion. It applies to government agencies, state officials, law enforcement officers, municipal entities, and other public employees. For example, if a jailor mistreats an inmate, or if a school district fails to uphold its educational obligations, Section 1983 is there to defend citizens' basic human rights.

However, there is a loophole in Section 1983 that prevents government officials from being held personally liable for wrongdoing. This loophole is called qualified immunity, which shields officials from legal consequences if their actions do not clearly establish that they knowingly violated constitutional rights. Qualified immunity has been criticised for impeding victims from seeking justice and compensation for damages suffered at the hands of government officials.

Qualified immunity shields officials from accountability

The constitution is a set of instructions about the organisations, authorities, and limitations on government activities. Only a governmental entity can violate the constitution, or an individual exercising responsibility for that governmental entity. Each of us, as private citizens, cannot violate the constitution.

Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated a plaintiff's rights. It was introduced in 1967 at the end of the Civil Rights Movement as part of federal civil rights law (Section 1983). It was meant to balance holding officials accountable and protecting them from frivolous lawsuits while performing their duties. However, many argue that the doctrine has become a loophole that shields officials from accountability and liability when they violate a person's constitutional rights.

In practice, qualified immunity has been used to protect officials from accountability in cases of police violence and misconduct. For example, in the 2018 case of Kisela v. Hughes, an Arizona police officer shot a mentally impaired woman four times as she stood in her driveway holding a kitchen knife. The Supreme Court granted the officer immunity, holding that the officer had not violated "clearly established law". In another case, a court granted qualified immunity to an officer who used a "takedown maneuver" against a small woman, breaking her collarbone and knocking her unconscious. The court noted that there was no precise set of facts in past cases that matched the current one, and so the officer was granted immunity, leaving the injured woman without a remedy.

Qualified immunity has also been criticised for undermining constitutional rights, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to be free from racial discrimination. In 2020, police in the United States were responsible for over 1,000 fatalities, with Black individuals constituting 24% of those deaths. The high-profile police-involved deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor brought qualified immunity into mainstream conversations, sparking widespread protests and calls for legislative change.

Ending qualified immunity is seen as a critical step toward providing financial justice for those whose rights have been violated by government officials.

Explore related products

Trial Court & Appeal: False Arrest, Imprisonment, and Civil Rights Violations By L.A. County: Complaint, Discovery, Court Forms & Motions, Appellate Briefs, and Writs of Mandate

$15.95

The Law Officer’s Pocket Manual, 2023 Edition

$21.98 $42.99

HOA Constitutional Government

$15.95 $15.95

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Treatise)

$117.28

TORTURERS REPORT - 2: Torture and Human Rights Violations in Turkey

$16.99

Public International Law and Human Rights Violations by Private Military and Security Companies

$94.72 $119.99

Citizens can sue for violating civil liberties

While the constitution is a set of instructions about the organisations, authorities, and limitations on government activities, only a governmental entity can violate it. However, citizens can sue for violating civil liberties under a federal law called Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This law was enacted to prevent law enforcement from ignoring the lynching of newly freed Black citizens. It holds state and local government officials liable for monetary damages in federal court if they have violated constitutional rights.

Victims of civil rights violations who win a Section 1983 lawsuit can recover compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees. Compensatory, or "economic", damages cover things like lost income and medical expenses that result from police misconduct, while punitive damages may be tacked on as extra compensation when the court finds police conduct to be especially harmful. In addition to these damages, a plaintiff may also ask for an injunction, which directs people to do or not do something in accordance with the judge's decision.

However, the Supreme Court created a giant loophole that undermines the goal of Section 1983, making it virtually impossible for government officials to be held personally liable for wrongdoing. That loophole is qualified immunity, which the Supreme Court or Congress could fix to ensure constitutional misconduct does not go unpunished. Qualified immunity is a legal principle that protects government officials from lawsuits over discretionary actions that do not violate a "clearly established" right. While it is meant to protect officials who must exercise discretion in their work, critics argue that it gives police and other government officials a free pass to violate people's civil rights without legal consequences.

Despite the challenges posed by qualified immunity, citizens can and have successfully sued government officials for violating their civil liberties. For example, in 2010, a Connecticut man, Almighty Supreme Born Allah, sued jail officials for keeping him in solitary confinement during pretrial detention, and four federal judges agreed that this treatment violated his constitutional rights. Similarly, in the case of a Minneapolis man who died in police custody, the victim's family has hired a legal team to pursue civil rights litigation over the alleged police misconduct.

The Constitution does not apply to person-to-person affairs

The Constitution outlines the limitations of federal and state governments, restricting their actions and powers. However, it does not apply to private person-to-person affairs. This means that individuals cannot violate the Constitution; only governmental entities or individuals acting on behalf of a governmental entity can.

For example, if a government official violates your constitutional rights, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures or cruel and unusual punishment, you may have legal recourse against them. Section 1983, a federal law enacted in 1871, holds state and local government officials liable for monetary damages if they violate constitutional rights.

However, it's important to note that there is often a lack of accountability when it comes to constitutional violations. Qualified immunity, for instance, has been criticized for creating a loophole that makes it challenging to hold government officials personally liable for wrongdoing.

Additionally, while violating the Constitution may not be a criminal offense, it can still have consequences. If a government entity enacts laws or takes actions that are deemed unconstitutional, they can be challenged in court, and restitution may be required.

The Constitution serves as a framework for governing entities to follow, ensuring the protection of individual rights and liberties. While it may not directly apply to person-to-person interactions, its principles and values guide societal norms and expectations for respectful and lawful conduct among individuals.

Frequently asked questions