Public Administrators and Constitutional Torts
The law on whether and when public officials could be held liable for constitutional rights violation is incoherent. Within the constitutional torts’ liability rule, there is a lack of standard accountability, hence denoting acceptance of the right’s violation. Constitutional torts are legal activities to pursue monetary damages. The Supreme Court made it easier for civilians to sue public officers personally to get compensation through money damages if they defiled their constitutional rights. Ziglar v. Abbasi 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) summarizes this ruling (Nahmod, Wells, Eaton, & Smith, 2019). This decision by the Supreme Court guides to protect civilians’ constitutional rights after being subjected to public administrators’ abuse. Constitutional Torts’ current principles designate that public officials and employees are not immune from civil suits, but its execution is not realized reasonably.
Constitutional torts are incoherent in various dimensions. Some government officials are automatically answerable to legal rights violations resulting in monetary compensation. Regardless of their disruptive misconduct, other officials tend to be immune from paying for their destruction responsibility. Furthermore, other administrators enjoy qualified protection against any liability. It is a practice signifying almost close negligence. Constitutional Torts requires review to resolve the particular constraints deep-seated in limiting organizational values to bridge the gap between constitutional rationale and administrative practices (Rosenbloom, 2018, p. 59). The public administrators escaping punishment for their irresponsibility is worrying. Courts should assess the constitutional torts’ provision to reprimand of different perpetrators, notwithstanding their position, rank, or title. The evident biasness is unfair, and it creates a sense of inadequate accountability for protecting human rights.
Conclusively, constitutional torts are well-structured laws enforced to guard civilians against public administrators who violate their rights. The principles appear less reliable and incoherent despite their enforcement. Reviewing this law is essential to determine that unruly administrators are held liable to remain cautious while attending to civilians’ needs.
References
Nahmod, S. H., Wells, M. L., Eaton, T. A., Hosch, J. A., & Smith, F. (2019). Constitutional Torts, 2018 Supplement (4th ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
Rosenbloom, D. H. (2018). Administrative law for public managers (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.