Filarsky v. Delia

Background

A city firefighter missed work and the City of Rialto hired private investigators. The City then hired a private lawyer to conduct an internal investigation and to order the firefighter to produce building materials for inspection. The firefighter sued under a federal civil‑rights law (Section 1983), claiming the order violated his constitutional rights. The lower courts granted immunity to most officials but the Ninth Circuit said the hired lawyer could not claim qualified immunity because he was not a city employee.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether a private person temporarily hired to do the government’s work can claim qualified immunity from a Section 1983 suit. The Court looked to common‑law practice around the time Congress enacted Section 1983 and to the reasons courts protect government actors: avoiding timid decision‑making, attracting qualified people, and preventing distracting lawsuits. The Court concluded that those reasons apply to private individuals performing government duties, so such hires may be eligible to seek qualified immunity and the Ninth Circuit’s categorical rule was reversed.

Real world impact

The ruling means lawyers, consultants, and other private hires working for government bodies can ask courts for the same immunity public employees receive. That may reduce the risk that individuals working with government face personal damage suits for coordinated official acts. The decision does not automatically grant immunity in every case; the usual immunity tests still apply and specific lawsuits may continue.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices agreed but emphasized limits. One noted the case must be revisited on remand to decide if the conduct violated clearly established law. Another warned not every private actor will qualify; facts and supervision matter.