In the case of Kush et al. v. Rutledge, 1982, the U.S Supreme Court held that a state official could be held liable for damages under Section 1983 if they were found to have violated an individual's constitutional rights while acting within their professional capacity. The case involved a prison inmate in Arizona who alleged that he had been assaulted by other inmates with the knowledge and acquiescence of prison officials. He sued these officials under Section 1983 claiming violation of his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. The District Court dismissed his complaint but was reversed by the Ninth Circuit on appeal which ruled that state officers can be personally liable for damages caused by their unconstitutional conduct even when performing discretionary functions. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision stating that qualified immunity does not protect government officials from liability for gross incompetence or knowing violations of law, thereby establishing precedent regarding personal accountability among public servants in relation to civil rights abuses.

In the dissenting opinion for Kush et al. v. Rutledge, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold a police officer's immunity from prosecution was flawed and unjustified. He contended that it is inappropriate to grant absolute immunity to law enforcement officers who knowingly violate an individual’s constitutional rights, as this undermines the very essence of civil liberties protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of precedent cases which they used as justification for their ruling. According to him, these cases did not establish a blanket protection for all actions taken by police officers in line of duty but rather provided limited protections under specific circumstances only.