As part of the Reopen Government Act passed by the Senate, then by the House, and signed into law by the President, Senate Republicans had slipped in a provision allowing Senators to sue…the government…over having had their cell phone records secretly collected by Federal government Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was pretending to investigate the January 6 Capitol Hill riot participants.

Notably, the bill explicitly strips federal officials of qualified immunity—a legal doctrine that has long shielded government agents from personal liability even in cases of egregious constitutional violations.

Aside from the fact that a successful suit by a Senator would result in us taxpayers paying the judgement rather than the government officials who did the deed, it would exclude House members, and worse, us average Americans from that capacity.

There’s an alternative to that that would be more far-reaching than just rescinding the Senate’s amendment.

Contrast this with the fate of the Bivens Act of 2024, a modest bill that would have amended America’s premier civil-rights statute. Under Section 1983 of the US Code, Americans can sue state and local officials for constitutional violations, but federal officials are virtually untouchable. The Bivens Act would change that, while still keeping qualified immunity as a defense. The bill sought to codify a cause of action that the Supreme Court has steadily eroded over the past two decades. It died in committee without a vote.

The House needs to revisit the Bivens Act and include it in their rescission bill.

And go a step further.

Qualified immunity for government officials is a highly useful judicial doctrine (not statute) which protects those persons from a plethora of frivolous suits. But the bar is too high, allowing some constitutionally miscreanting officials to skate on otherwise egregious behavior. An additional move that would mitigate this would be to change the onus from requiring the plaintiff to prove why qualified immunity should not apply in his case to requiring the defendant to prove why it should. And an additional step, which would mitigate all those suits that would turn on that proof: the loser of the case over whether qualified immunity should apply, must pay the winner all legal costs involved.