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?

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?