Athul K. Acharya 7/8/22 Athul K. Acharya 7/8/22

Clearly Established #18

Week of July 8, 2022—Bivens, free exercise, takings, “good faith” immunity, and a SWATting.

Clearly Established #18

Welcome to the 18th issue of Clearly Established, a somewhat monthly, slightly irreverent roundup of recent accountability decisions. Let’s dive right in.

First off, in Supreme Court news: In between decimating reproductive rights and kneecapping the EPA, the Supreme Court found time in June to expand immunity for federal officials. You read more on this Twitter thread or listen to our ED talk about the case on this Bloomberg podcast, but the short version is this: It’s harder than ever to sue federal officials for violating your constitutional rights.
Prison warden bans group prayer outside the chapel, which is rarely available during the five times a day that Muslims must pray. Muslim inmates sue for violation of their free-exercise rights. Qualified immunity? Not a chance, says the Second Circuit. “We can discern no asserted governmental interest—much less a compelling one—for the requirement that Plaintiffs engage in group prayer only in the prison chapel.”
In this Third Circuit decision, a prosecutor is denied absolute immunity for opening a retaliatory investigation into and threatening a detective. Huzzah! we say. But we also note that this rare instance of a prosecutor losing absolute immunity comes in a case where the prosecutor is across the v. from a cop. And the alleged retaliation was because the cop was trying to obstruct a fellow cop’s indictment for murder. So: huzzah, but a muted huzzah.
Officers arrest a man for public intoxication. He spends the next 34 hours overdosing on a jailhouse floor—vomiting, thrashing, convulsing, and calling for help. No help arrives. Jail guards, noticing he’s dead: “Oh well.” Even the Fifth Circuit can’t bring itself to give these officers qualified immunity.
So how far does that federal immunity (see the Supreme Court case at the top) extend? Not as far as officers who lie to a judge to procure a warrant, the Seventh Circuit holds, but such officers can still get absolute prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity.
St. Louis officers kill a man by holding him prone and putting pressure on his back for 15 minutes. (If that sounds familiar, it should.) Eighth Circuit (2020): If a detainee offers resistance, no constitutional violation in holding him prone. Supreme Court (2021): The guy was handcuffed and shackled, and they kept him prone for 15 minutes. Try again. Eighth Circuit (2022): Fine. Qualified immunity instead. (Bonus: the court also gives the City of St. Louis something that looks an awful lot like qualified immunity, even though the Supreme Court has held for decades that municipalities can’t get qualified immunity.)
If the government orders non-critical businesses to shut down in response to a global pandemic, is “private property be[ing] taken for public use”? Eighth Circuit: We find no caselaw clearly establishing that proposition. In fact, we’re not even sure you can sue an individual government official for a taking, as opposed to suing the government itself.
In 2018, the Supreme Court overruled forty years of precedent and held that public-sector unions can’t collect “agency fees” from non-union public employees. What about fees taken before 2018—can non-union employees get a refund from their public employers? No, says the Ninth Circuit, because public employers are entitled to “good faith” immunity for actions taken in reliance on Supreme Court precedent. Judge Bumatay, concurring reluctantly: Inventing “newfangled” immunities is “wrongheaded” and “brazen.” (We agree, and we searched his concurrence for similar skepticism of qualified immunity—strangely, we came up empty.)
A cop stops a biker (whose crime is biking without a front light) by cutting him off with his SUV. The biker goes flying, hits the SUV head-first, and loses consciousness. Any Fourth Amendment concerns? No “clearly established” ones, says the Ninth Circuit. Judge Christen, concurring: Fine, but can we at least agree that cutting off a bike with an SUV is deadly force?
In this “swatting” case, the Tenth Circuit disproves our general rule that when a court uses the word “tragic” at the beginning of an opinion, it’ll grant qualified immunity at the end. No qualified immunity for shooting the swattee moments after he exited his house, unarmed, with his hands up.

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.

Athul K. Acharya 5/26/22 Athul K. Acharya 5/26/22

Clearly Established #17

Week of May 26, 2022—Bivens, qualified immunity, and several interesting concurrences and dissents.

Welcome to the 17th issue of Clearly Established, a somewhat monthly, slightly irreverent roundup of recent accountability decisions.

This issue is a special one—it marks one year of operation for Public Accountability! In one year, we’ve won two cases and lost zero. We got $750,000 for one of our clients. We made it harder for officials to file frivolous appeals when they lose qualified immunity. We strengthened and clarified important constitutional rights, including the right to protest. And we’ve got more good work in the hopper. So before we dive in, a request: When you're done reading what what the federal courts have been doing with anti-accountability doctrines, please hit that “Donate” link at the bottom and toss what you can our way. We defend civil rights, and we can’t do it without your help.

And with that, on to the cases!

Federal public defender, sexually harassed by her superiors and fired after reporting it, brings Bivens claim. The Supreme Court has severely curtailed new Bivens claims, but it long-ago greenlit claims for sex discrimination in federal employment. So can this federal employee’s sex-discrimination lawsuit go forward? Fourth Circuit: Not a chance. That case was against a congressman, while this is against employees of the federal judiciary. Totally different. No Bivens claim.

In this entertaining cop v. cop lawsuit out of the Fifth Circuit, we’re sorely tempted to say “let them fight” and call it a day. But we reckon it’s not an accident that the Black cop gets guns pointed at him and the white cop gets qualified immunity. C’mon now.
Cop 1 tells a car full of underage kids fleeing a party to stop. Kids accelerate past him. As the car goes by, cop 2 shoots the passenger in the head. Texas courts: Yep, that’s murder. Fifth Circuit: No qualified immunity. Ho, J., dissenting: The cops say they felt threatened by a car driving away from them, and who are we to judge?
Cops fail to solve the brutal murder of a high-school student in Livingston Parrish, La. Two years later, a jailhouse informant fingers a man they’d already ruled out. His account is inconsistent and contradicts known facts about the crime, but the cops are undeterred. They concoct a story “out of whole cloth,” arrest a high-school kid, and intimidate him into adopting their fabrication. After the man spends sixteen years in prison, the Supreme Court overturns his conviction. He sues the cop and the prosecutor, who claim absolute prosecutorial immunity. Fifth Circuit: Manufacturing evidence is more cop-like than prosecutor-like, so no immunity for you.
Judge Ho has a dubitante dissent in that last case that merits a bullet point all of its own. Because of precedent, he says, he’d grant the defendants absolute immunity. But he’s not happy about it: “Worthy civil rights claims are often never brought to trial. That’s because an unholy trinity of legal doctrines—qualified immunity, absolute prosecutorial immunity, and Monell—frequently conspires to turn winnable claims into losing ones.” Preach, Judge Ho. [Now there’s a sentence I never expected to put in this newsletter. —ed.]
Man creates a satirical Facebook page to mock his local police department. His satirical page offers “free abortions” and a “Pedophile Reform event.” The cops, naturally, get big mad and arrest the man. He wins at his criminal trial and then sues for violation of his First Amendment rights. Sixth Circuit: We’re not sure your Facebook page was speech, but we’re damn sure the officers get qualified immunity. Case dismissed.
After a stabbing, Des Moines police tell the victim’s family they’ll take them to the hospital. Instead, they take the family members to the stationhouse and question them for over three hours against their will. In the meantime, the victim dies. Constitutional violation? Clearly established? Eighth Circuit: Yep and you bet. Stras, J., concurring: “Rarely do rights come more clearly established.”
Over the course of about 14 hours, during which he demonstrates plenty of obvious visible symptoms, a man in jail suffers a ruptured aorta and dies. Ninth Circuit: “We must determine whether the level of medical care was unconstitutional, not whether it was so substandard that it may have cost Russell his life.” Perhaps you find it strange, reader—as we do—that the two questions are not the same. But in the end, the Ninth Circuit still denies qualified immunity to two out of the three defendants. To trial they must go.
For years, prison officials refuse to treat a man’s prostate issues. When he’s transferred to a different facility, medical staff there finally order emergency treatment. They end up draining 6 liters of urine from his bladder. (The human body contains 5 liters of blood.) Was the “treatment” officials rendered at the first facility clearly unconstitutional? Officials: No case says we can’t adopt a “wait and see” approach. Ninth Circuit: “At some point ‘wait and see’ becomes deny and delay.” Qualified immunity denied.

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.

Athul K. Acharya 6/25/21 Athul K. Acharya 6/25/21

Clearly Established #5

Week of June 25, 2021—Decisions from the Fifth and Ninth Circuits and D.C. District Court. Plus: Our first amicus brief!

Welcome to the fifth issue of Clearly Established, a somewhat weekly, slightly irreverent roundup of the week’s interesting accountability decisions. We took last week off because we were busy putting the finishing touches on (drumroll, please) our first amicus brief! But we’ll get to that. First, the decisions:

Allegation: Federal agents tear-gassed, shot rubber bullets at, and beat up peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square, all so President Trump could stage a photo op at a church across the way. D.C. District Court: You can’t sue federal officers under the First Amendment. You also can’t sue them under the Fourth or Fifth Amendments if “national security” is involved. Claims against federal agents dismissed. (This is an example of the Bivens doctrine, which we’ve discussed before.)

Houseless man in Dallas, Tex., is assaulted and suffers multiple head injuries. Paramedics and cops arrive—but instead of treating the man, they mock him and arrest him for public intoxication. Twelve hours later, he dies in jail. Paramedics, perhaps conscious of some guilt, submit false reports saying they never met the guy. Qualified immunity? Fifth Circuit: Not a chance.
Kid with ADHD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder is put in a time-out. Then: “In an attempt to re-enter the classroom, T.O. tried to push Abbott away from the classroom door and hit her right leg. Abbott responded by seizing T.O.’s neck, throwing him to the floor, and holding him in a choke hold for several minutes.” Still, the Fifth Circuit gives the teacher qualified immunity—but the opinion’s author specially concurs to urge, as he has for 20 years, that the court overrule its “completely out of step” corporal-punishment precedents.
In which the Ninth Circuit gives us a threefer: (1) Solitary confinement isn’t cruel and unusual; (2) it’s not even an atypical or significant hardship; and (3) prisoners have no right not to be compelled to inform—or testify falsely!—against other inmates. Qualified immunity and case dismissed.

Now for that amicus brief! In our very first issue, we brought you the story of a Ninth Circuit case holding that prisoners have no clearly established right to confidential communications with their lawyer. We thought it was a bad decision, so when the prisoner decided to ask the full court to rehear the case, we decided to voice our support. Here’s how the brief begins:

When John Witherow called his lawyer, he expected to be able to speak in confidence. Most of us do. Witherow was even using a special phone his prison provided for attorney calls. His subjective expectations converged with longstanding constitutional law, federal rules of evidence, and rules of professional ethics—not to mention objectively reasonable notions of privacy. Still, over Judge Berzon’s dissent, the panel here declined to decide whether Witherow had a right to confidential communications with his lawyer. Instead, it skipped ahead to the second prong of qualified immunity and held that even if he had such a right, it wasn’t clearly established. So whether that right exists continues to be an open question in this circuit.

You can read the rest of the brief 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.