Did the Fifth Circuit err in holding that there is a second type of qualified immunity—that government officials are also entitled to qualified immunity, even when they violate clearly established constitutional rights, and 'no matter how unconstitutional their motives,' if it was unclear at the time of the violation whether relief was available in an action 'under section 1983' for the injuries caused by those constitutional violations?

QUESTION PRESENTED In an action under section 1983, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. The question presented is: Did the Fifth Circuit err in holding that there is a second type of qualified immunity—that government officials are also entitled to qualified immunity, even when they violate clearly established constitutional rights, and “no matter how unconstitutional their motives,” if it was unclear at the time of the violation whether relief was available in an action “under section 1983” for the injuries caused by those constitutional violations? li PARTIES The parties to this action are set out in the caption.