Also known as: clearly establish · clearly establishes · clearly establishing · clearly established law · clearly established right
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard requiring that preexisting law place the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate so that every reasonable official would understand that the conduct violates the right at issue.
Deputy Director Harlan coordinated with banking regulators to freeze Ridge Equity accounts without notice after receiving a presidential directive on foreign financial threats. Ridge Equity sued Harlan personally for violating clients' due-process rights. The court denied absolute immunity and turned to whether the rights were clearly established when Harlan acted.
The Nollans sought a building permit but faced a deed restriction requiring public beach access. They argued the condition violated their property rights. The commission defended by showing that lateral access expectations were already settled under state law at the time of the permit application.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Davis stood trial for homicide and raised an insanity defense. The prosecution introduced evidence of his actions and mental state at the time of the killing. The jury was instructed to acquit only if insanity was shown by the same degree of proof required to convict a sane defendant.
Iqbal sued high-level officials after his detention, alleging they had designed a policy that violated his constitutional rights. The complaint contained only conclusory assertions about the officials' knowledge and intent. The Court examined whether those allegations stated a plausible violation of clearly established rights.
York brought an equitable action in federal court seeking to enforce rights that state law would recognize. The defendant argued that federal equitable principles barred relief. The Court considered whether the state-law rights were sufficiently settled to support the federal claim.
Hobby Lobby challenged a federal mandate requiring contraceptive coverage in employee plans. The company asserted that the requirement substantially burdened its religious exercise. The Court assessed whether the mandate violated rights that were already clearly delineated under federal religious-freedom law.
The plaintiff must show both that the defendant violated a federal right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Courts may address the two prongs in either order.
Supporting sources
The objective test asks whether preexisting precedent placed the question beyond debate for a reasonable official. It makes the defendant's actual state of mind irrelevant and permits early resolution by summary judgment.
Supporting sources
No. Existing precedent need only have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate. A case with identical facts is not required.
Supporting sources
An aide receives only qualified immunity when the conduct does not involve discretionary functions in sensitive areas of national concern closely tied to presidential decisionmaking. In all other circumstances the aide is shielded only if the conduct did not violate clearly established rights.
Supporting sources
…historical development of the privilege and the sound policies which have nurtured its evolution, judicial precedent thus clearly establishes its application to incommunicado interrogation. In fact, the Government concedes this point as well established in No. 761, Westover v. United States , stating: "We have no doubt . . .…