Talk:Pierson v. Ray

Erroneous interpretation
This article has this sentence: "In Congress, Justin Amash (L-MI) introduced the Ending Qualified Immunity Act[6] which criticized the erroneous interpretation of Section 1983 by the Supreme Court in Pierson v Ray and subsequent rulings. It adds the following text to Section 1983."

I personally agree that the 1967 decision was erroneous and I kinda hate QI. But should this sentence have that in there like that? It sounds like the article is taking a position on a complicated legal matter. Novellasyes (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)