Which case describes the defense of qualified immunity for government officials performing discretionary functions?

The case that addresses the defense of qualified immunity for government officials performing discretionary functions is characterized by its focus on protecting officials from litigation in instances where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations, as long as the official did not violate a clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known.

In the context of the options provided, the selected case typically reinforces the concept that government officials must be able to carry out their duties without the constant fear of legal repercussions for actions taken in their official capacity, assuming a reasonable official could have believed they were acting within their rights at the time.

Other cases listed may touch on related themes, but without the specific framework of qualified immunity relating to discretionary functions as emphasized in the chosen answer. Contextually, some of those cases are more focused on different aspects of civil rights or procedural justice rather than the core element of qualified immunity itself.