The Supreme Court’s Important Decisions on Qualified Immunity

Overview:  The U.S. Supreme Court recently released two cases on qualified immunity for officers sued under Section 1983.  The cases basically address the clearly established law aspect of 1983 suits.  The Court was quite critical of the lower courts for finding clearly established law by suggesting it through a case with materially different facts.  The cases are worth reading and links to them are below.  Here are a few very interesting takeaways:

1.       The Supreme Court appears to indicate that “clearly established law” needs to be based on a case from the Supreme Court, although the question was ultimately left unanswered.  That presents an interesting issue.  If the Supreme Court is not certain that “clearly established law” can be based on lower court opinions, how could an officer be expected to clearly know what precedent controls his or her qualified immunity (perhaps giving the officer qualified immunity for any precedent based on a non-Supreme Court case until that question is answered). 

2.       Qualified immunity protects all officers but the “plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”

3.       Regarding use of force, the Court recognized it is “difficult for an officer to determine how [excessive force] will apply to the factual situation the officer confronts.”

4.       The Court even says officers can get qualified immunity if they commit a Fourth Amendment violation – so long as their conduct does not violate a precedent clear based on “facts like the ones at issue.”

Case Quotes

DANIEL RIVAS-VILLEGAS v. RAMON CORTESLUNA, 595 U. S. ____ (2021)

“the facts of LaLonde are materially distinguishable from this case and are therefore insufficient to have made clear to every reasonable officer that the force Rivas-Villegas used here was excessive.” We agree and therefore reverse.

existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Whether an officer has used excessive force depends on “the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including

the severity of the crime at issue,

whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and

whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” (citing Graham v. Connor)

Neither Cortesluna nor the Court of Appeals identified any Supreme Court case that addresses facts like the ones at issue here. Instead, the Court of Appeals relied solely on its precedent in LaLonde. Even assuming that Circuit precedent can clearly establish law for purposes of §1983, LaLonde is materially distinguishable and thus does not govern the facts of this case.

CITY OF TAHLEQUAH, OKLAHOMA, ET AL. v. AUSTIN P. BOND, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DOMINIC F. ROLLICE, DECEASED, 595 U. S. ____ (2021)

We need not, and do not, decide whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment in the first place, or whether recklessly creating a situation that requires deadly force can itself violate the Fourth Amendment. On this record, the officers plainly did not violate any clearly established law.

As we have explained, qualified immunity protects “‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’”

We have repeatedly told courts not to define clearly established law at too high a level of generality.

It is not enough that a rule be suggested by then-existing precedent;

Such specificity is “especially important in the Fourth Amendment context,” where it is “sometimes difficult for an officer to determine how the relevant legal doctrine, here excessive force, will apply to the factual situation the officer confronts.”

As for Sevier, that decision merely noted in dicta that deliberate or reckless preseizure conduct can render a later use of force excessive before dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. To state the obvious, a decision where the court did not even have jurisdiction cannot clearly establish substantive constitutional law.

 Neither the panel majority nor the respondent has identified a single precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation under similar circumstances. The officers were thus entitled to qualified immunity.