What does qualified immunity defend government officials against?

Qualified immunity serves as a legal doctrine that protects government officials from civil damages in cases where their actions do not violate "clearly established" rights. This means that if a government official makes a decision or takes an action that is consistent with what the law has previously established, and if it is within the scope of their public duties, they can be shielded from civil liability.

The essence of this doctrine is to balance the need for accountability in government with the need for officials to perform their duties without the constant fear of personal liability. For a plaintiff to overcome qualified immunity, they must show that the official's actions infringed upon a right that was clearly established in prior case law, making it clear that the official's conduct was unconstitutional or unlawful.

In this context, delving into the rationale for the other options emphasizes the specific nature of qualified immunity. While it does not shield officials from criminal charges or accountability altogether, it limits the circumstances under which they can be held liable in civil lawsuits, particularly when their conduct does not clearly infringe upon established constitutional rights. This is crucial for understanding the boundaries and limitations of qualified immunity in protecting government officials in their roles.