Patrick Jaicomo Profile picture
Feb 15, 2023 14 tweets 9 min read Read on X
🧵 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ALERT

In Taylor v. LeBlanc, the 5th Cir. holds it’s clearly established that prisons cannot hold people beyond their release date (more than 2 years in this case).

But the 5th Cir. creates a NEW ELEMENT of #QualifiedImmunity to let the jailer off. Wow. 1/
Normally, there are 2 questions for #QualifiedImmunity:

(1) Is there a constitutional violation? (2) Is it “clearly established”?

The clearly-established test does all the mischief because it requires an earlier decision on similar facts (e.g., pepper spray vs. taser). 2/
Though it’s premises are wrong (if not absurd), SCOTUS created the clearly-established test to determine whether an official’s acts were “objectively reasonable.” I.e., if there’s a similar case holding that an act is unconstitutional, it’s objectively unreasonable to do it. 3/
But in Taylor, the 5th Cir. separates the clearly established test from reasonableness and holds that a gov’t official can violate clearly established law AND STILL GET #QUALIFIEDIMMUNITY. This is wild and creates yet *another* way for gov’t officials to avoid accountability. 4/
Taylor cites to Hare v. City of Corinth, but the original emphasis makes clear that Hare was distinguishing b/w clearly established law at the time of its decision and the time of the act-the latter being dispositive. (So Taylor’s omission of Hare’s emphasis is crucial.) 5/
Taylor also cites Hope v. Pelzer, a uniquely anti-#QualifiedImmunity SCOTUS opinion, which created an obviousness exception to the clearly-established test. Taylor relies on Hope to argue the c-e test is not sufficient to overcome QI. But Hope held the OPPOSITE. 6/
The whole point of Hope was to explain that some things are so bad no earlier case is necessary for fair warning. The Supreme Court reiterated that recently in Taylor v. Riojas, slapping down the 5th Cir. for granting #QualifiedImmunity for horrific jail conditions. 7/
But somehow (in another prison case, no less), the 5th Cir. is using Hope for the opposite proposition: Even if something IS clearly established as unconstitutional, we can grant #QualifiedImmunity unless plaintiff somehow shows it was also objectively unreasonable. Huh? 8/
Judge Ho has been pretty good on #QualifiedImmunity in the past year. (See, e.g., Villarreal v. Laredo). But this is through the immunity looking glass.

Read for yourself.

/END

ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…
CLARIFICATION: A commenter (who seems to have deleted her account?) pointed out that this is not a totally new test, citing Kipps v. Caillier from 1999. I agree that I was a little imprecise. So, I'd like to add a couple points: . . . a/
(1) The 3d element in Taylor is not "new," but one that has been dormant in the 5th Cir. for about 20 years. (2) It has been cited in other circuits, primarily the 1st (where it went dormant in about 10 years ago) and the 6th (which still uses it, see below). b/
(3) The 3d element seems to have been an attempt to address the specificity requirement of the c-e test (e.g., taser v. pepper spray), but that's not how the 5th Cir. uses it here. Rather, Taylor acknowledges keeping someone for 30 days past a sentence is a c-e 14A violation: c/
As I noted earlier, if a sufficiently specific precedent clearly establishes something is unconstitutional, that (per Harlow v. Fitzgerald itself) is what determines objective unreasonableness. But Taylor creates a new escape valve (or at the very least muddies the precedent): d/
Finally, and most importantly, (4) this independent 3d element is clearly inconsistent with SCOTUS precedent. The cited portion of Saucier doesn't support it. Hope v. Pelzer certainly doesn't support it. Taylor makes #QualifiedImmunity worse.

/end (for real this time)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Patrick Jaicomo

Patrick Jaicomo Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @pjaicomo

Mar 24, 2023
🧵 @IJ's been fighting hard against #FirstAmendment retaliation - litigating a dozen cases in the past few years. But people don't realize that #SCOTUS has all but killed retaliatory *arrest* claims. It's wild. Let me tell you about it (and our case👇). 1/
ij.org/case/castle-hi…
While #SCOTUS is very protective of prior restraint on @USConst_Amend_I and kinda protective of non-arrest retaliation (but see #QualifiedImmunity), it's openly hostile to retaliatory arrest claims. See Nieves v. Bartlett. 2/ ImageImageImage
Worse still, the reason #SCOTUS immunizes police from retaliatory arrest claims? Pure *policy* (AKA judicial activism). You can't enforce the #FirstAmendment because police have a tough job. Seriously. Justice Gorsuch points this out in his concurrence in Nieves. 3/ ImageImage
Read 12 tweets
Mar 17, 2023
#SCOTUS🧵In 2014, police task force members misidentified James King as a criminal and brutally beat him. The officers never identified themselves, so bystanders believed they were witnessing a murder and called 911. Today, @IJ filed cert (for the 2nd time). #AppellateTwitter 1/ ImageImage
Litigation for the past 9 years(!) has been a case study in immunity doctrines, and has already been to the U.S. Supreme Court in Brownback v. King. I'll walk through that, but lets start with James telling his story: 2/

To begin, Mich. prosecutors charged *James* with multiple felonies. So at 21 he had to stand trial and face decades in prison. If the gov't can get a plea or conviction, most constitutional claims against police die. Thankfully, a jury acquitted James (and he refused to plea). 3/ Image
Read 16 tweets
Oct 3, 2022
🚨Excited to share that @TheOnion has filed the best amicus brief I've ever read in favor of @IJ's cert petition in Novak v. Parma. Novak challenges the 6th Cir's use of #QualifiedImmunity to deny #FreeSpeech protections to a parodist. 1/ @SCOTUSblog
supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?fi…
This is the Onion's first amicus brief, and it does a perfect job of showing and telling why parody (like the Facebook posts Anthony Novak published lampooning his local police) is a core #FirstAmendment tool. Anthony was arrested for it. Now the Onion stands with him: 2/
Much more (less funny) information on @IJ and Anthony's case here: 3/
Read 8 tweets
Jul 29, 2022
In #QualifiedImmunity news, a 2-1 5th Cir. granted QI to a group of Castle Hills, TX officials who conspired to throw @IJ client and then-72yo Sylvia Gonzalez in jail for exercising her #FirstAmendment rights to speech and petition. #AppellateTwitter
🧵 1/
ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2… Image
More specifically, the court held that because there was probable cause for a made-up misdemeanor charge, it did not matter that the mayor, police chief, and others conspired to have Syliva jailed for speaking out. (The decision represents a narrow interpretation of Nieves.) 2/ Image
Although @IJ and Sylvia proved that, over a decade no one in Bexar Cnty. TX has EVER been charged under the statute used to charge Sylvia for similar conduct, the only sufficient evidence is proving a negative; find people who jaywalked and DIDN'T get a ticket. (Impossible.) 3/ Image
Read 12 tweets
Jun 10, 2022
🧵More on Egbert v. Boule, #FederalImmunity, #PoliceAccountability: @IJ has 2 petitions pending on a similar issue involving *domestic* federal policing: Mohamud v. Weyker & Byrd v. Lamb. SCOTUS has been holding those cases *since Jan.* pending Egbert. 1/

ij.org/case/federal-p…
We expect the Court will soon issue orders in Mohamud and Byrd (perhaps Monday), and what it does with them will be telling about what - if anything - is left of Bivens. If you want a little more on our cases, I have talked about them here: 2/

Big picture, Egbert is the latest in the Court's death-by-1000-cuts approach to klling Bivens (w/o having to confront stare decisis or public outrage). What Egbert holds is that federal police *involved in immigration related functions* (about half) now have #FederalImmunity. 3/ Image
Read 12 tweets
Jun 8, 2022
🧵In Egbert v. Boule today, #SCOTUS has all but overruled Bivens without actually doing so. In effect, the Court has enshrined #FederalImmunity and rights without remedies. To get there, the Court has, again, changed the shifting rules for Bivens . . . 1/

supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf… Image
In denying both 1st and 4th A. claims against a CBP agent who shoved down an innkeeper in his driveway and then retaliated against him for complaining, the Court retcons its Bivens jurisprudence and essentially now announces a rational-basis style test for Bivens.

2/ Image
The Court also says that the relevant inquiry for considering the Bivens context is not the facts of any given case, but some undefined broad category--in this case Border Agents and national security.
3/ Image
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(