Tennessee governor candidates, side by side: Qualified immunity reveals how candidates define accountability
by Brandon Burley and The Redemption Project
Qualified immunity often enters political conversation as a phrase people recognize but rarely stop to define.
Once candidates are asked to explain whether they would actually change it, the differences become much easier to see.
The question asked whether Tennessee law should change qualified immunity for government employees, including law enforcement.
That matters because qualified immunity is not criminal law. It is civil protection. It shapes when government employees can be sued, when constitutional violations become legally actionable and how courts determine whether rights were clearly established enough for liability to move forward.
The candidates answered from very different starting points.
Lauren Pinkston supported narrowing qualified immunity when clearly established constitutional rights are violated. Her answer paired legal accountability with stronger law enforcement training, mental health support and co-responder systems, suggesting reform without separating liability from practical field conditions officers face.
Jerri Green approached the issue through constitutional equality. Her answer argued that Tennessee increasingly shields government actors from legal consequence even when constitutional protections are violated, and that qualified immunity should be reformed so those protections carry meaningful accountability
Adam Ditch supported reform through a more specific statutory structure. He cited a Tennessee Civil Rights Restoration Act and professional liability insurance for high-risk government employees, framing the issue through legal design rather than broad political language.
