Supreme Court Backs the Blue

The Supreme Court issued rulings in Oklahoma and California upholding qualified immunity, a doctrine protecting law enforcement from lawsuits alleging excessive force. The decisions were made without oral arguments and no dissent among justices. Reforming or eliminating qualified immunity is a key focus of police reform efforts. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund expressed disappointment, indicating that reform must come from outside the court.

What legal doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court in recent rulings involving cases from Oklahoma and California?

• Due Process

• Habeas Corpus

• Qualified Immunity

• Double Jeopardy

What was notable about the Supreme Court's decision-making process in these cases?

• They held public hearings

• There was significant public dissent

• Decisions were made without oral arguments

• The rulings were unanimous

What has been a major focus of police reform efforts in relation to qualified immunity?

• Reducing police force size

• Revising or eliminating qualified immunity

• Increasing police funding

• Enhancing police training programs

Who expressed doubt about the Supreme Court's willingness to reform qualified immunity?

• The President

• The Attorney General

• A Supreme Court Justice

• The deputy director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund

According to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where must reform efforts come from if not from the court?

• The Supreme Court

• State Governments

• International Bodies

• Elsewhere