Supreme Court signals potential shift for police from qualified immunity to near absolute immunity

[AshG]

The Supreme Court floats a startling expansion to police immunity from the law

"A passage in the Court’s new decision in Rivas-Villegas, however, floats a radical idea: that officers may be entitled to qualified immunity even if they violate clearly established circuit court precedents. The opinion was unsigned, which is a common practice when the justices dispose of a case in a brief decision without hearing argument on the case, so we don’t know who wrote the opinion or who inserted the two significant sentences into it.

Twice, the Rivas-Villegas opinion uses nearly identical language — “even assuming that Circuit precedent can clearly establish law” and “even assuming that controlling Circuit precedent clearly establishes law” — that implies it is uncertain whether a circuit court decision is sufficient to overcome qualified immunity. These lines open the door to a new regime, where victims of police violence can no longer rely on appellate court decisions to breach an officer’s partial immunity to suit."

Not sure how I'm feeling about this one. Still chewing on the implications.

 

[LouderVol]

The Supreme Court floats a startling expansion to police immunity from the law

"A passage in the Court’s new decision in Rivas-Villegas, however, floats a radical idea: that officers may be entitled to qualified immunity even if they violate clearly established circuit court precedents. The opinion was unsigned, which is a common practice when the justices dispose of a case in a brief decision without hearing argument on the case, so we don’t know who wrote the opinion or who inserted the two significant sentences into it.

Twice, the Rivas-Villegas opinion uses nearly identical language — “even assuming that Circuit precedent can clearly establish law” and “even assuming that controlling Circuit precedent clearly establishes law” — that implies it is uncertain whether a circuit court decision is sufficient to overcome qualified immunity. These lines open the door to a new regime, where victims of police violence can no longer rely on appellate court decisions to breach an officer’s partial immunity to suit."

Not sure how I'm feeling about this one. Still chewing on the implications.

Generally not a fan.

 

[C1500]

That's not going to turn out well IMO.

 

[hog88]

If I'm reading it right its actually scary. Again I say if I'm reading it right, SCOTUS is basically saying district courts and themselves are the arbiters of rights and decide the law.

 

[Rickyvol77]

The Supreme Court floats a startling expansion to police immunity from the law

"A passage in the Court’s new decision in Rivas-Villegas, however, floats a radical idea: that officers may be entitled to qualified immunity even if they violate clearly established circuit court precedents. The opinion was unsigned, which is a common practice when the justices dispose of a case in a brief decision without hearing argument on the case, so we don’t know who wrote the opinion or who inserted the two significant sentences into it.

Twice, the Rivas-Villegas opinion uses nearly identical language — “even assuming that Circuit precedent can clearly establish law” and “even assuming that controlling Circuit precedent clearly establishes law” — that implies it is uncertain whether a circuit court decision is sufficient to overcome qualified immunity. These lines open the door to a new regime, where victims of police violence can no longer rely on appellate court decisions to breach an officer’s partial immunity to suit."

Not sure how I'm feeling about this one. Still chewing on the implications.

Maybe you should read up on it somewhere other than a Vox article it lost me when it claimed TN vs Garner and Graham vs Connor were “vague” rulings

 

[n_huffhines]

If those wary of the police state liked qualified immunity, they're going to love absolute immunity.

 

[lawgator1]

This is the focus of my practice and has been for 25 years. I have cases appealed to the Supreme Court though they have not taken one yet. I have however had about 30 at the circuit court level, all involving qualified immunity.

First and foremost, there is an enormous false equivalency made in articles like this. It is one thing to say that three years after an incident lawyers will debate what the state of the law was back when it occurred. It is quite another to suggest that cops alter their actions based on what their understanding was of clearly established laws especially in use of force situations. They react. They don't ponder how a court will parse the issue years later.

Second, I think people are overreading this. The two comments st issue seem to me to be simply in the context of pointing out that even if the law was clearly estasbkiehd by circuit precedent to be ABC, this conduct didn't meet that standard.