Thread by @RMFifthCircuit

@JusticeWillett continues his (sometimes solo) fight against qualified immunity, issuing a powerful dissent from denial of rehearing this evening. He recognizes what many of us have said: there is a "shift" in CA5's QI jurisprudence 1/

ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…

His description of the facts is evocative - it gets a strong reaction, which you will see in the next tweet 2/

Judge Jolly says Judge Willett essentially is out to lunch. (I've read the facts in this case and I think it's a lot closer to burned alive) /3

Back to DRW. Willett says that the Supreme Court's recently (re)announced obviousness rules for qualified immunity tell us that knowingly tasing someone doused in gasoline violates clearly established law. /4

Judge Willett fights back against the argument that it's on him (and the plaintiff) to say what the officers should have done. It's enough, he says, that, well, they flamethrowered a man. /5

Judge Willett points out that, in his view, the Court is ignoring SCOTUS's "shadow docket" commands to, well, cool it on QI just a touch. /6

Judge Willett finishes off with this strong conclusion. Head-scratching indeed. /7

Going to turn to the strongest parts of the concurrences.

Judge Ho's main point, I think, is to say: look, what are the officers supposed to do in this (everyone agrees) dangerous situation? /8

Next, Ho says, this isn't even a qualified immunity case, so why are you upset? (obviously, I'm paraphrasing him). /9

He also says this, which I am will note without comment. /10

Judge Oldham also attacks on the alternatives front. He says the alternative actions for the police were "absurd" /11

Finally, Oldham says that the obviousness cases were just a lot more obvious /12

Last excerpt: Judge Jolly's rejoinder to the tone of Judge Willett's opinion /13

Y'all know, I think, by now where I fall on this kind of cases (i.e., a lot more should be tried to a jury), so I'll leave it there.