Courts continue rejecting lawsuits challenging pandemic-era immunity for officials and providers
Courts across the country are continuing to uphold legal immunity protections that were put in place during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, rejecting new efforts to hold public officials and long-term care providers personally responsible for decisions made during a time of crisis. Recent rulings from federal and state courts show that judges remain reluctant to second-guess actions taken when information was limited, resources were scarce, and the risks of inaction were also high.
In one recent case, a federal appeals court reviewed claims brought against former New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy and the state’s former health commissioner. The lawsuit centered on a policy that required nursing homes to accept residents who tested positive for COVID-19. Families of residents who died argued that the decision exposed vulnerable people to unnecessary danger, especially when protective gear was hard to obtain and nursing homes warned they could not keep sick and healthy residents apart.
A three-judge panel rejected those arguments, ruling that the officials were protected by qualified immunity. This legal principle shields government leaders from personal liability when they act within their official roles, even if the outcomes later appear harmful. The court noted that the law is designed to allow leaders to make tough choices without fear of lawsuits years later. Judges emphasized that decisions made during emergencies cannot be judged solely with the benefit of hindsight.
While acknowledging the grief of families who lost loved ones, the court found that the plaintiffs did not meet the high legal standard needed to overcome immunity. The judges pointed out that the law does not allow courts to replace the judgment of elected officials simply because later evidence suggests a different path might have reduced harm. The ruling followed similar decisions in other states, including New York, where courts reached the same conclusion about pandemic-era nursing home policies.
Photo by Artem Podrez from Pexels
On the same day, a state supreme court in Iowa also declined to reopen a wrongful death case involving a nursing home resident who died from COVID-19 in 2020. That case focused on whether the facility’s actions rose to the level required to bypass Iowa’s liability shield law, which protects healthcare providers from most COVID-related lawsuits unless families can prove reckless or intentional misconduct.
The resident’s family pointed to troubling facts, including that nearly every resident at the facility became infected and that inspections later found sanitation and safety problems. These included poor hand hygiene, improper cleaning of equipment, and gaps in protective gear use. The family argued that these failures showed a disregard for safety and should allow their lawsuit to move forward.
The courts disagreed. Judges ruled that inspection reports alone were not enough to prove reckless conduct. They noted that the family did not present firsthand testimony from staff, residents, or inspectors, and relied heavily on an expert opinion based on records rather than direct observation. The courts found that while the issues cited might suggest care problems, they did not meet the strict legal definition needed to override immunity protections.
In its decision, the Iowa Supreme Court explained that the state legislature intentionally limited civil lawsuits during the pandemic. Lawmakers wanted to ensure that healthcare providers would continue treating patients despite rapidly changing guidance and severe staffing shortages. According to the court, the types of failures cited in the case reflected uneven execution of rules rather than intentional harm or conscious disregard of known risks.
Together, these rulings reinforce a legal trend that began early in the pandemic. Many states passed emergency laws to protect hospitals, nursing homes, and government leaders from lawsuits tied to COVID-19. While some of these laws have been narrowed or challenged over time, courts have largely upheld their core purpose.
For families who lost loved ones, these decisions can feel unsatisfying. Courts often acknowledge the pain and anger behind the lawsuits, but judges repeatedly state that sympathy alone cannot replace legal standards. Immunity laws were created to balance accountability with the need for fast decision-making during emergencies.
As pandemic-related cases continue to work through the legal system, providers and officials remain uncertain about how long these immunity protections will last. Still, recent rulings suggest that courts are not eager to rewrite history or impose liability for actions taken under extreme pressure. The message from the judiciary has been consistent: mistakes made during an unprecedented crisis do not automatically become legal violations once the crisis has passed.
Sources:
Appeals courts again reject efforts to undercut providers’ COVID-era immunity
