No it doesn't. The case will get thrown out on some other grounds when the officials sends in their report on why the permit was denied. Likewise, not responding to the lawsuit could result in a default judgement regardless of QI.
We can keep frivolous lawsuits by people pissed off with bureaucracy from happening while also allowing government officials to be sued for the actual economic damages they inflict on people.
I take it you believe the US became a functioning democracy in 1967, then?
That's when Pierson v. Ray was decided and QI was invented.
Because there was a specific reason QI came to be, and it was not a matter of a long-established doctrine being formalized.
I'll wait.
Should give you a good context and background going back to the 1800s.
For example say a rich person murders their partner. The cops show up and the killer says "if you arrest me I will drag all of you into court personally for years to come and bankrupt your families." Without QI the officers need to make a decision if justice is worth the risk of personal loss.
Or if a rich person wants to build a new deck which is denied a permit, QI is what prevents them from personally dragging everyone involved to court personally.
QI does not eliminate personal liability when a crime has been committed. If an officer shoots someone and is charged criminally, they can then be sued personally.