Petitioner Kevion Rogers was a low-risk inmate at a Texas prison. Officials there entrusted him with working outside the security fence. One morning, he entered a hog barn as part of his work duties and noticed that the ceiling was caving in. Part of it then collapsed, striking Rogers in the head and knocking him unconscious. When he came to, he staggered out and told Respondent Jeffrey Jarrett he was “seriously injured” and needed to be checked out at the infirmary. Jarrett did nothing, saying Rogers “looked fine.” Rogers turned out to have a traumatic brain injury.

Rogers sued under Section 1983, claiming that Jarrett’s deliberate indifference to his safety and medical needs violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted Jarrett qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Rogers had not found any case finding a violation of constitutional rights based on similar facts.

Cato filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision and abolish qualified immunity. Neither Section 1983’s text nor the early history of constitutional torts justifies qualified immunity. In fact, as Judge Willett noted in his concurring opinion below, courts have wrongly overlooked the fact that Section 1983—as originally enacted by Congress—forecloses qualified immunity. What is more, qualified immunity undermines public confidence in officials, including law enforcement and the courts, and is based on faulty assumptions about how official liability actually works. The Supreme Court should do away with this unjustifiable obstacle to official accountability and victims’ recovery.