The Supreme Court will have a chance to stop at least one common abuse of qualified immunity

Law enforcement officers sometimes make split-second decisions that turn out wrong. But in the case of Sylvia Gonzalez, a mayor, police chief and special detective spent weeks considering ways to retaliate against her, a retiree who promised change when she ran for city council in Castle Hills, Texas.

After Gonzalez was elected, she faced deliberate, coordinated, prolonged efforts to silence her. She even spent a day in jail on bogus allegations.

But when Gonzalez sued her persecutors for violating her First Amendment right to criticize them, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed her case.

As part of their defense, the mayor and his accomplices asserted “qualified immunity,” a judicially-created doctrine that shields public officials from lawsuits unless their victims can prove the abuse was “clearly established” as unconstitutional in prior cases.

Government workers deserve this get-out-of-jail-free card, courts have ruled, because public service sometimes requires quick thinking. If first-responders must answer for their split-second decisions — the same as everyone else — they might hesitate in tense situations, and too much second-guessing could get people killed.