An interactive study from the Cato Institute—How Qualified Immunity Hurts Law Enforcement—is an honoree in this year’s Webby Awards for “Best Individual Editorial Feature.” The Webby Awards are the most prestigious awards for websites and online content. Out of thousands of entries, many submitted by nationally recognized brands, Cato’s study on how qualified immunity impacts police was one of just eight features to receive recognition in this category.

While much of Cato’s qualified immunity work focuses on the harm the doctrine has wrought on victims of government abuse, this feature explored another angle: how the doctrine hurts police. The study recognized how public confidence in policing had fallen in the wake of high-profile incidents of police violence. That trend has continued since the feature’s publication, with trust in police officers hitting new lows in the wake of the Tyre Nichols tragedy. As noted in the study, an overwhelming majority of police—86%—report that this decline in trust has made it more difficult to do their jobs.

It’s also made it more difficult to hire police, even as—paradoxically—many citizens are calling for a greater police presence amidst a heightening fear of crime. Here in D.C., major funding approved this year to hire 347 new officers is estimated to leave the city with a net gain of around just 20, as veteran officers continue to leave the force and potential recruits look for careers elsewhere.

Has the bottom fallen out of police-community relations? Even as people seek increased police presence, they remain distrustful of police themselves. This has made policework undesirable, which in turn, complicates the effort to build the police force necessary to keep people safe. Major changes are necessary to rebuild the reputation of law enforcement, restore community trust, and protect public safety.

Eliminating Qualified Immunity is the Crucial First Step

The most critical change is eliminating qualified immunity, a doctrine that incentivizes police departments to hire and retain officers who use excessive force by protecting those officers from legal consequences.

Police officers have many reasonable protections from litigation. But qualified immunity extends protection to officers who violate the Constitution in ways that are objectively unreasonable even when viewed from an officer’s heat-of-the-moment perspective.

The Fourth Amendment and its related jurisprudence already protect police officers (and other public officials) who make hair-trigger mistakes or misjudgments that were reasonable at the time. That’s doubly true if an officer’s life is at risk. Most people would agree that these protections are both reasonable and warranted. And indeed, even without qualified immunity, police would still be shielded from liability for good-faith mistakes—especially those made in violent encounters.

But the arbitrary, court-invented doctrine of qualified immunity creates a means for departments and police officers to escape accountability for abhorrent acts via a standard that is completely divorced from any analysis of whether an officer’s actions are reasonable—or malicious.

For any individual police department, attempting to downplay officer misconduct and employ the legal shield of qualified immunity has a rational, Machiavellian appeal. Replacing a veteran officer, for instance, may be costlier in the short-run than using qualified immunity to stave off a legal challenge. That may be why Derek Chauvin, the officer who murdered George Floyd, had survived 17 previous complaints before his horrifying act of violence captured national attention.

Envisioning a Better Future for Police

Good police officers shouldn’t carry the burden of being lumped together with the proverbial bad apples who wantonly violate people’s rights. Recognizing the harm that qualified immunity does to their profession, police organizations such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives have backed reform efforts.

As local jurisdictions like New Mexico, Colorado, and NYC curtail the doctrine, a world without qualified immunity is beginning to take shape. Something like malpractice insurance for police officers is already rolling out—and some, like this “Hero’s Insurance” plan, are as cheap as $15 a month. These low costs help put incentives in the right place: departments need to be wary of reckless officers to avoid costly litigation, while officers are on notice that a bad track record could make them effectively uninsurable.

Inevitably, eliminating qualified immunity will cause departments to face new costs. As bad officers leave the force, departments will need to replace them with better officers, who may want better pay. A congressional bill eliminating qualified immunity should remain attentive to public concerns about rising crime and not shy away from providing new block grants for hiring police and boosting their paychecks.

But these costs are necessary to restore the respect and trust police forces need to do their jobs, and the task of building better police forces can’t wait. It’s time for Congress to take the next step—and end the doctrine of qualified immunity nationwide.