The Supreme Court on Monday issued a ruling in an excessive-force lawsuit against a Vermont police officer, holding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law put him on notice that using a wristlock to lift a noncompliant protester — after warnings — violated the Fourth Amendment.
In an unsigned decision, the justices reversed a lower court and granted Vermont police Sgt. Jacob Zorn qualified immunity after he used force to remove a protester during a 2015 sit-in at the state capitol.
The court's ruling was 6-3, with the liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
The question was whether prior case law clearly established that Zorn’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court said it did not, holding that officers are protected unless existing precedent clearly establishes the conduct is unconstitutional.
The Second Circuit held that Zorn was not entitled to qualified immunity. We reverse.
The lower court had allowed the case to proceed based on earlier rulings, which put officers on notice that using a wristlock on a nonviolent, passively resisting protester could amount to excessive force. The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, concluding that those cases did not clearly apply to the situation Zorn faced.
In short, officers receive qualified immunity unless they could have “read” the relevant precedent beforehand and “know[ n]” that it proscribed their specific conduct.
Qualified immunity does not turn on whether force looks unreasonable after the fact, but on whether existing precedent had already clearly established the conduct as unlawful at the time it occurred. The Court focused on whether prior decisions addressed similar conduct, not whether they spoke broadly about excessive force.
Read More: Police Shootings and Qualified Immunity: Time to Rethink?
The case involves a 2015 protest inside the Vermont State House, where demonstrators refused to leave after the building closed. When officers moved to clear the chamber, Shela Linton remained seated and linked arms with other protesters. Zorn warned her he would use force, then applied a wristlock and lifted her to her feet.
Linton later sued, alleging physical and psychological injuries. The case moved through the lower courts before reaching the Supreme Court, which ended it before trial.
"Because the lower court 'failed to identify a case where an officer taking similar actions in similar circumstances was held to have violated the Constitution,' Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity."
Sotomayor criticized the Court’s application of qualified immunity, arguing that the majority intervened too early and prevented a jury from deciding whether the force used was excessive.
“The majority today gives officers license to inflict gratuitous pain on a nonviolent protestor,” she wrote.
Sotomayor also warned that the Court’s approach risks turning qualified immunity into an “absolute shield for law enforcement officers.”
Without a prior case clearly on point, the claim does not survive. That is the standard the Court enforced.
Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda.
Help us fight back against the Democrats and Soros-backed DAs that refuse to enforce our laws to hold criminals accountable. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member