Immunity for government-hired lawyers
Filarsky v. Delia
In brief
The Court overturned the rule that Filarsky could not seek qualified immunity because he was a private lawyer, but did not decide whether he qualifies for the defense.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · April 17, 2012 · Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
- What it’s about
- Rialto hired private lawyer Steve Filarsky to investigate firefighter Nicholas Delia, who later sued over alleged constitutional violations during the investigation; the dispute was whether Filarsky could claim qualified immunity (a defense against personal damages suits over government work) despite not being a city employee.
- Who it affects
- Private people temporarily hired to carry out government work may seek qualified immunity, but the decision does not guarantee they will receive the defense.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Filarsky’s private status alone barred him from seeking that defense, but did not decide whether he ultimately qualified for it.
Rialto hired Filarsky, a private lawyer, to investigate firefighter Nicholas Delia. Delia later sued over alleged constitutional violations during the investigation.
Qualified immunity is a defense in personal damages suits over government work; the dispute was whether a city’s outside lawyer could seek it.
Question presented
If a private lawyer is retained by the government, is that attorney precluded from claiming qualified immunity solely because he or she is a private lawyer rather than a government employee?
What the Court decided
Holding
A private individual temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity from suit under §1983. Pp. 4 − 16. 621 F. 3d 1069, reversed.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said that not being a government employee does not by itself prevent a private person temporarily hired to do government work from seeking the defense.
The vote
- Majority author
- John G. Roberts, Jr.
What's next
Further proceedings may address whether Filarsky meets the usual test for qualified immunity; the Supreme Court left that question open.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Filarsky
Opinion added: Filarsky
More questions
- What could still prevent Filarsky from getting qualified immunity?
- Justice Ginsburg said the defense could fail if Filarsky knew or should have known that his conduct violated a right clearly protected by law at the time.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.