Connecticut House Bill HB06177

Connecticut 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/25
• Refer: 1/22/25

Caption

An Act Concerning The Use Of Governmental Immunity As A Defense In Civil Actions Resulting From Deprivation Of Equal Protection Of The Laws Of The State Committed By A State Elected Official.

Impact

The proposed legislation seeks to align the accountability standards for state officials with those applicable to police officers, who are also bound to uphold individuals' constitutional rights. This bill aims to encourage greater responsibility among state elected officials by ensuring that they cannot invoke governmental immunity as a blanket protection against civil rights violations. As a result, it could lead to increased civil litigation against state officials found to intentionally or recklessly violate laws designed to protect citizen rights. Such accountability might result in a shift in how state officials conduct their operations and decisions, potentially leading to a more vigilant approach towards civil rights enforcement.

Summary

House Bill 06177 relates to the use of governmental immunity as a defense for state elected officials in civil actions involving the deprivation of equal protection under the law. The bill intends to amend Chapter 925 of the general statutes to ensure that no state elected official can deprive individuals or groups of their constitutional rights. It establishes that in legal claims against state officials, governmental immunity would only apply if the official had an objectively good faith belief that their actions were lawful at the time of the incident. This means that if an official is found to have acted unlawfully, they could be held personally accountable in civil lawsuits.

Contention

The bill may face points of contention related to how it impacts the latitude granted to state officials when making decisions that may affect the public. Critics may argue that the legislation could deter talented individuals from seeking public office for fear of personal liability. There may also be concerns about the increased litigation and its repercussions on the state’s budget and resources dedicated to legal defenses. Furthermore, the discussion around this bill touches on broader themes of governmental accountability and the balance of power, which might spark debate among legislative members and constituents alike. As such, the bill illustrates the tension between effective governance and the protection of individual rights.