BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of two different police requests seeking "qualified immunity" legal defense in excessive force cases
Supreme Court issues two summary rulings in favor of cops in cases where the lower courts had denied qualified immunity. No dissents
In one case, cop in California was accused of using excessive force while handcuffing a suspect while in the other, cops in Oklahoma fatally shot a man wielding a hammer
In California case, court says the precedent that 9th Circuit relied upon to say that putting a knee in someone's back while they are lying on the ground is "clearly established" as unconstitutional was "materially distinguishable" and therefore did not apply
In Oklahoma case, similar analysis: "Not one of the decisions relied upon by the Court of Appeals ... comes close to establishing that the officers’
conduct was unlawful"
conduct was unlawful"
Neither of these cases had facts very helpful for plaintiffs but the decisions seem to show (again) that the court still thinks lower courts need to be chided for denying qualified immunity to cops too frequently
Neither of the cases led to the court addressing any of the criticism about qualified immunity. If anything, they suggest the court still thinks too many cops are denied qualified immunity, despite evidence revealed by Reuters showing an increase in QI denials in recent years
Reminder that denial of qualified immunity doesn't mean the cops are held liable. It just moves the case closer to trial (or a settlement)
U.S. Supreme Court again protects police accused of excessive force reuters.com/legal/governme…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
