As a 33-year law enforcement veteran and a dedicated advocate for police reform and accountability, I know firsthand how urgently our justice system needs change. Unfortunately, widespread misinformation about the President’s powers over police immunity is a severe obstacle to real reform. Too often, I’ve seen Black leaders, self-proclaimed activists, radio hosts, and even some lawyers push a completely false narrative about presidential authority over qualified immunity. There’s a belief that, whether it’s Donald Trump or anyone else, a President could somehow extend “blanket immunity” to police officers nationwide. This is not true. The President does not have the authority to directly change qualified immunity protections, a legal doctrine that can only be altered by Congress or the courts.
Qualified Immunity: Defined by Courts, Not the Executive Branch
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine established by the judiciary through Supreme Court precedent, not an executive power that a President can alter or enforce. The Supreme Court set the modern framework for qualified immunity in the 1982 case Harlow v. Fitzgerald. In this pivotal decision, the Court ruled that government officials are protected by qualified immunity from civil lawsuits unless they have violated “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have recognized. This doctrine shields government officials, including police officers, from liability unless their actions breach well-defined constitutional rights.
Qualified immunity has been shaped over decades of court rulings, making it a legal standard strictly under judicial control and out of reach of any President’s authority. Unfortunately, many civil rights attorneys often opt for settlements rather than pursuing trials, which can involve the difficult task of proving that an officer’s actions crossed the threshold necessary to overcome qualified immunity. Because of this tendency toward settlement, few cases have established precedent for holding officers liable for constitutional rights violations to the extent that qualified immunity is set aside. In the long run, this approach by some so-called civil rights attorneys can hinder real progress in holding officers accountable, prioritizing quick payouts over lasting reform.
The President’s power over qualified immunity is significantly limited—contrary to what some misconceptions may suggest. When President Obama unveiled his 21st Century Policing Model, it was offered as a set of recommendations rather than mandates. This approach was taken because the federal government does not possess the constitutional authority to compel local, county, or state police to adopt specific policies. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reinforces this limitation, reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. This means that matters related to local law enforcement and their policies fall within the jurisdiction of individual states, not the federal government.
Even if a President were to issue an executive order aimed at reforming qualified immunity, it would not be sufficient to change or revoke such protections for officers across state and local jurisdictions. The doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields government officials, including police officers, from civil liability in specific circumstances, can only be modified through a Supreme Court decision or new legislation passed by Congress. Both pathways lie outside the President’s unilateral power, underscoring that any significant change to qualified immunity would require the collective action of other branches of government or the states themselves. The 10th Amendment’s emphasis on states’ rights ensures that such reforms are not solely within the federal government’s domain.
The President’s Limited Influence on Police Accountability
While the President can support certain policies or urge Congress to pursue specific reforms, executive power over policing policy is confined mainly to federal law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, DEA, or ATF. The President may set guidelines for these federal agencies, but this authority does not extend to the approximately 18,000 state and local police departments nationwide.
Federal guidelines or funding incentives can encourage states to adopt reforms, but these tools are indirect. They do not create immunity protections or impose binding policies on state and local police. Claims that the President could mandate or remove qualified immunity protections across the board misrepresent how U.S. law works. The constitutional separation of powers and the federalist system give states control over local policing matters, limiting the President’s influence.
Advertisements to Black Men About Brining Back Stop and Frisk
Recent advertisements on social media have suggested that Project 2025 would reintroduce “stop and frisk” policies, but these claims are misleading. “Stop and frisk,” also known legally as a Terry Stop, originated from the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio. This ruling permitted police officers to stop and pat down individuals for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed and dangerous. To be factual, stop and frisk never left. The practice is not inherently illegal; it becomes unlawful when used discriminatorily.
The application of stop and frisk in New York City in the late 1990s and early 2000s serves as a notable example of its problematic use. While intended as a proactive policing strategy, data revealed that it disproportionately targeted specific groups, particularly racial minorities, raising significant concerns about racial profiling and violating constitutional protections under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In 2013, a federal court ruled that New York City’s implementation of the policy violated civil rights due to the discriminatory manner in which it was applied.
during PresidentiThus, while Terry Stops remain lawful when conducted within constitutional bounds—based on reasonable suspicion and without bias—their misuse to target specific demographics renders such practices unconstitutional. This is why it’s important to address these patterns and practices on a local county and state level if you want to make real change. Not use it to create fear and panic in Presidental elections. You are only doing a disservice to the victims.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act: A Case Study in Federal Limits
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is a clear example of federal limits on policing reform. This Act was crafted with sweeping goals for police accountability, yet it is fundamentally limited by the same constitutional constraints that restrict presidential authority. The Act applies only to federal law enforcement officers and cannot mandate changes across local, county, or state departments. For most law enforcement officers in America, the George Floyd Act serves only as an example or a potential incentive, not as a mandate.
Even with congressional support, federal laws cannot override the state authority that governs local policing. Under the Tenth Amendment, policing is a power reserved to the states, and federal legislation must respect this balance of power. While Congress can tie reforms to federal funding, compliance remains voluntary for states. This highlights that proper accountability and reform require state-level action.
State-Level Reform: The Path to Real Change
If qualified immunity reform is to happen, state governments are best positioned to enact it. Some states, like Colorado and New Mexico, have already introduced laws that limit qualified immunity protections within their jurisdictions, allowing individuals to seek justice in state courts if their rights are violated. These state-led reforms respect local needs and empower communities to decide the standards for their police departments.
Real progress will happen through state and local efforts. While federal incentives and guidelines can be helpful, meaningful accountability in policing relies on state and community-driven reform. States can take steps to redefine qualified immunity, set stricter accountability standards, and create compensation mechanisms for victims of police misconduct—all without waiting for federal action. Don’t let any local, county, or state official shift the responsibility to the federal government regarding solutions for your police department. They are deflecting from their duty to govern and be accountable.
The Path Forward: Fact-Based Advocacy Over Misinformation
Misinformation about the President’s power to grant or remove qualified immunity only misleads the public and distracts from effective reform strategies. It’s our collective responsibility to advocate for fact-based information and support state and local reforms, which are constitutionally grounded and more adaptable to specific community needs.
Activists, policymakers, and the public must understand that real change requires working within our federal structure. As powerful as the presidency is, it does not hold the keys to rewriting judicial doctrine or creating immunity policies for local police officers. To achieve a fairer and more accountable justice system, we must look to state and community-driven solutions that empower local governments to enact reforms that reflect their values. This is where our inspiration and motivation for change lies.
Ultimately, the President can advocate but cannot mandate qualified immunity. We must be laser-focused on solutions, not fear. True accountability lies in the hands of states and local communities. All politics are regional, and there is nothing more local than the policies of your police department. By focusing on informed, constitutionally sound advocacy, we can pursue real reform and ensure our policing system is just, transparent, and answerable to the people it serves.
