WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 3503

Common law defenses of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity limited.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Bidal Duran

The bill removes or narrows judicial and quasi-judicial immunity for state actors when they act in bad faith or with actual malice and violate nondiscretionary duties or judicial c

Introduction and first reading, referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law
#courts #legalproceedings
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 3503

Summary of HF 3503 (2025-2026) – Minnesota

Purpose and Intent

HF 3503 proposes to limit the broad common law defenses of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity for state actors and peace officers. The bill introduces standards that, in certain circumstances, remove or narrow immunity defenses when a governmental actor’s conduct is in bad faith or done with actual malice, and when the action violates non-discretionary ministerial duties or the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. The intended effect is to reduce immunity in cases where state employees or peace officers act inappropriately, providing greater accountability and potential liability for wrongful acts.

Effective date: August 1, 2026. The act applies to causes of action arising on or after that date.

Key Provisions

Section 1 — General Rule (amends Minn. Stat. 2024, § 3.736, subd. 1)

  • Keeps the general rule that the state will compensate for injuries or losses caused by an employee acting within the scope of office or a peace officer acting in good faith, under circumstances where private liability would apply.
  • Modifies immunity language to explicitly state that the defense of judicial, quasi-judicial, or legislative immunity is limited as described in new subdivisions (1a) through (8) (the text establishes the framework for such limitations).
  • Effective date: August 1, 2026 (applies to causes of action arising on or after that date).

Section 2 — New Subdivision: Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Immunity Limited (added to Minn. Stat. 2024, § 3.736)

  • Definitions:
    • “Actual malice”: An act done with ill will, spite, or improper intent to cause undue harm.
    • “Bad faith”: A conscious and willful decision to mislead, deceive, or distort the truth, including making a claim known to be groundless or unfounded.
  • Limitation on immunity:
    • The defense of judicial or quasi-judicial immunity does not apply to acts or omissions that:
    • Violated a nondiscretionary ministerial requirement; or
    • Violated the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct (as established by the Minnesota Supreme Court, § 490A.02, subd. 7);
    • And were done in bad faith or with actual malice.
  • Burden of proof:
    • For a defendant properly raising this defense, the presumption is good faith and lack of malice.
    • The plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant acted with bad faith or malice to overcome the immunity presumption.
  • Effective date: August 1, 2026 (applies to causes of action arising on or after that date).

Who or What Would Be Affected

  • State employees acting within the scope of state employment.
  • Peace officers acting not on behalf of a private employer and acting in good faith (per current framework) if they encounter situations involving potential liability.
  • Parties asserting claims for injuries or losses arising from acts by such state actors.
  • Courts assessing whether immunity applies in cases involving judicial or quasi-judicial conduct.

Procedural and Timeline Considerations

  • Effective date for both sections: August 1, 2026.
  • The changes apply to causes of action arising on or after the effective date.
  • Shifts the burden of proof in immunity disputes toward plaintiffs, requiring clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or actual malice to pierce immunity.
  • Introduces explicit standards for “actual malice” and “bad faith” as prerequisites to overcoming immunity defenses.

Potential Impacts

  • Increased potential liability exposure for certain state actors in cases involving improper conduct that violates nondiscretionary duties or judicial conduct codes.
  • Greater emphasis on accountability for acts done in bad faith or with malice.
  • Courts will need to apply the heightened standard (clear and convincing evidence) when evaluating immunity defenses in relevant cases.
  • The balance between protecting legitimate governmental functions and holding officials accountable may shift toward greater scrutiny of conduct deemed improper or unethical.

If you’d like, I can provide a section-by-section comparison with current law or draft a plain-language FAQ for readers.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.