Clearly Established #3
Welcome to the third issue of Clearly Established, a somewhat weekly, slightly irreverent newsletter rounding up some of the week’s interesting accountability decisions. Let’s dive right in.
Last week, the Fifth Circuit held that prisoners in the federal system can’t sue for retaliation under the First Amendment. (That’s because of the Bivens doctrine; see last week’s newsletter for a quick explanation.) This week, in response to another prisoner’s claim that federal prison guards retaliated against him for filing grievances, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that holding—and added that even if the prisoner could sue, the guards would be entitled to qualified immunity. The not-so-rare Public Accountability double-whammy.
Reader, sit down for this one (cw: racial slurs). White officer investigates claim that Black officer shot an air rifle at a neighbor’s car. While searching Black officer’s apartment, white officer calls Black officer a “porch monkey,” says that he “lived like a n—,” and declared that “we’re going to get this n—.” His report recommends that Black officer be fired, omitting several facts that exculpate Black officer—such as that the shots could not physically have come from Black officer’s apartment. Black officer is fired; naturally, he sues.
White officer: I just wrote a report—I had no power to fire the guy. Seventh Circuit: You used your superiors as a “cat’s paw” for your racial animus, and for that you can be held liable. White officer: This cat’s paw theory of liability wasn’t clearly established in 2011, when all this happened. Seventh Circuit: That’s not how this works. By 2011, “a veritable river of precedents” clearly established the Black officer’s right not to be fired for being Black. You violated that right, and that’s what matters here—not whether you knew you could be held civilly liable. No qualified immunity for you.Police officers in Bellingham, Wash., tase trans woman and send her to the hospital. At the hospital, while she’s unconscious, they photograph her bare torso and thigh. Woman sues, alleging an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment; officers claim qualified immunity. District court: You say you just took photos of her in plain view, but her gown is arranged differently in each photograph. Curious! No qualified immunity for “lift[ing] clothing” to search someone without a warrant or an exception. Ninth Circuit: Just so. It has “long been established” that such a search violates the Fourth Amendment, and we don’t need a case with identical facts to deny qualified immunity here. (Bonus transphobia: The officers claimed they’d done nothing wrong because they’d merely photographed a “man’s torso.” Neither court took the bait.)
Allegation: Sheriff’s deputy in Los Angeles, Calif., coerces confession from Cameroonian man by threatening to send him and his entire family “back to the jungle.” Naturally, deputy did not administer Miranda warnings first. Violation of the Fifth Amendment? District court: Maybe, but you can’t sue for that. Ninth Circuit (January): Oh yes you can. Ninth Circuit (June): And we see no need to revisit that decision en banc. The Supreme Court may never have called Miranda a “constitutional right” in so many words, but it did strike down an Act of Congress purporting to abolish Miranda—that’s constitutional enough for us.
One other thing: A new podcast, Unaccountable, tells the stories of ordinary citizens whose rights have been violated and whose claims for redress have been stymied by qualified immunity. We recommend it.
That’s it for this week. Please feel free to send this newsletter to any friends or family who might find it interesting. If you got this from a friend, you can sign up to receive future issues here.
When we’re not writing this newsletter, we litigate cases in the federal courts of appeals. If you want to support that important work, you can do so here.
Thanks for reading.
