Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first introduced the justification for qualified immunity for police officers from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983, by arguing that "[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does.

"[1] The case refers to the incident in Jackson, Mississippi where 15 Episcopal priests were arrested after entering the coffee shop at the local Trailways bus terminal.

Meeting on the evening of September 11, 1961 in New Orleans, they left the following day on a chartered bus which would take them via McComb into Tougaloo, a small town outside Jackson.

After the priests refused to leave, Captain J. L. Ray arrested and jailed all 15 priests for breach of peace, using a now-repealed section of the Mississippi code § 2087.5 that "makes guilty of a misdemeanor anyone who congregates with others in a public place under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby, and refuses to move on when ordered to do so by a police officer."

They were brought to trial before the local judge James Spencer who found them guilty of breach of peace and sentenced them to four months in jail and $200 fine.

Represented by Carl Rachlin, the chief legal counsel at Congress of Racial Equality, they sought damages in the Jackson district court before Judge Sidney Mize, alleging the police and the local judge had violated Title 42, Section 1983 of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act by false arrest and imprisonment for exercising their civil rights.

[5] They went on to state that although police officers are not granted absolute and unqualified immunity from liability for damages, they may be excused "from liability for acting under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid but that was later held unconstitutional, on its face or as applied", similar to the principle that a police officer "... who arrests someone with probable cause is not liable for false arrest simply because the innocence of the suspect is later proved."

Accordingly, as the Act was passed without providing any exception for the judiciary, he concluded that Congress intended for Section 1983 to apply to 'any person', including judges.

The case concerned a State magistrate who jailed an individual for failing to post bond for an offense which could be punished only by a fine and not incarceration.

1983, obtaining both an injunction against the magistrate's practice of requiring bonds for nonincarcerable offenses, and an award of costs, including attorney's fees.

More importantly, the risk to judges of burdensome litigation creates a chilling effect that threatens judicial independence and may impair the day-to-day decisions of the judiciary in close or controversial cases.

Section 311 restores the full scope of judicial immunity lost in Pulliam and will go far in eliminating frivolous and harassing lawsuits which threaten the independence and objective decision-making essential to the judicial process.The current version reads (amendments from original are shown with emphasis): Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.Following a number of civilian deaths during encounters with US police, there was a heightened awareness of the case and the concept of qualified immunity, coming to a head with the murder of George Floyd in May 2020.

In the Senate, Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a resolution which asserts that the broad overreach and injustice of the concept of qualified immunity stemming from successive Supreme Court decisions is based "on a mistaken judicial interpretation of a statute enacted by Congress".

It was again passed in the House on March 3, 2021 but faces uncertain prospects in the Senate as the Democratic majority lacks the votes to overcome a filibuster.