What must be established to determine if an official is entitled to qualified immunity?

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, it is essential to establish if the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. This standard is rooted in the legal doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right that a reasonable person would have known.

For qualified immunity to be overcome, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the official's actions were not only unlawful but also that the right was sufficiently clear at the time of the incident. This means there must be existing legal precedents or statutes that provide clear guidance on what is considered a violation. The emphasis is on the clarity of the established rights, as this serves to protect officials from the uncertainty of legal consequences arising from their discretionary actions while performing their duties.

The other options, while relevant in other contexts regarding an official’s conduct, do not specifically address the core requirement needed to assess qualified immunity under current legal standards. Notably, merely acting in bad faith, receiving adequate training, or having community oversight does not determine the existence of a clearly established right that was violated.