Supreme Court Reaffirms Qualified Immunity for Law Enforcement

[Frodo]

The U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of officers accused of excessive force

[Vosem]

9-0.

[David Hume]

9-0.

Even Sotomayor didn't file a dissent.

[lfromnj]

The first of Monday's two cases concerned Daniel Rivas-Villegas, a police officer in Union City, Calif., who responded to a 911 call from a 12-year-old girl who, along with her mother and 15-year-old sister, had barricaded herself inside a room to hide from her mother's boyfriend, Ramon Cortesluna, who was reportedly using a chainsaw to destroy things in the house.

When officers arrived and confronted Cortesluna, they discovered he was carrying a knife. Another officer fired two non-lethal bean bag rounds at Cortesluna, after which he followed police orders to lie down. Rivas-Villegas knelt on Cortesluna's back and held up his arms as another officer retrieved the knife. After the incident, Cortesluna sued over use of excessive force.[/email]

[TheFonz]

They didn't really reaffirm it. The doctrine of qualified immunity was not on trial. They were asked whether the doctrine, as it currently exists, applied in this case.

As I recall, there's a mixed opinion of qualified immunity on the court. If it were to be directly challenged today, the breakdown would likely be:

Against - Thomas, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett
For - Breyer, Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh
Unknown - Kagan, but she'd probably err on the side of stare decisis.

QI is a repugnant doctrine, and has no basis in legislative law. It was written into existence by SCOTUS in the 1960s, and it needs to be written out of existence in the 2020s. But if the Court took up a direct challenge of it today, that challenge would likely fail, and the stare decisis case for keeping it in place would be strengthened. They need to wait until Alito and Breyer are gone and replaced before that challenge is a safe bet.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

How do you/we/people know Barrett’s opinion on qualified immunity? What did she say about it in the Seventh Circuit?

[TheFonz]

How do you/we/people know Barrett’s opinion on qualified immunity? What did she say about it in the Seventh Circuit?

https://reason.com/2020/09/23/amy-coney-barrett-demolishes-the-qualified-immunity-claim-of-a-detective-who-framed-a-man-for-murder/

[politicallefty]

How do you/we/people know Barrett’s opinion on qualified immunity? What did she say about it in the Seventh Circuit?

https://reason.com/2020/09/23/amy-coney-barrett-demolishes-the-qualified-immunity-claim-of-a-detective-who-framed-a-man-for-murder/

That's quite interesting if she proves to be a formalist rather than a pragmatist on criminal procedure matters. As much as partisan considerations are paramount, the formalist/pragmatist divide largely goes under the radar except among the closest of court-watchers. (Think of cases during the Rehnquist Court where you'd have Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg joining Scalia and Thomas in a majority opinion. Apprendi v. New Jersey is a great example.) If Barrett is indeed a formalist, that means she is the same as RBG in that respect. I think your breakdown largely reflects the formalist/pragmatist divide on the Court. However, I do think Kagan is more formalist than pragmatist.

Justice Breyer's retirement could be more consequential than some would think, even with President Biden nominating his successor. It could establish a firm formalist majority on the Court. If President Biden does get to nominate his successor, I would expect someone closer to Justice Sotomayor in terms of overall jurisprudence.