What happened
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday revived qualified immunity for Vermont police Sergeant Jacob Zorn, reversing a Second Circuit ruling that would have let Shela Linton take her excessive force claim to trial over her arrest at a state capitol sit-in.
In a per curiam opinion, the court said the Second Circuit applied qualified immunity at too general a level when it relied on Amnesty America v. West Hartford to hold that Zorn had fair notice that his conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. The majority said clearly established law must define the right with a “high degree of specificity,” and that the cited precedent did not do so for the wristlock and lifting technique used here.
The case arose from a 2015 protest at the Vermont capitol on Gov. Peter Shumlin’s inauguration day. After the building closed, police told remaining protesters they would be arrested for trespass if they did not leave. Linton stayed seated with other protesters and refused to stand. According to the majority, Zorn unlinked her arm, put it behind her back, applied pressure to her wrist and lifted her to her feet before other officers later carried her outside. Linton sued under Section 1983, alleging physical and psychological injuries.
The district court granted Zorn summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, but the Second Circuit reversed, concluding that circuit precedent had clearly established that gratuitous use of a rear wristlock on a passively resisting protester could be excessive force. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying Amnesty America involved a broader mix of alleged force and did not hold that Zorn’s specific conduct alone violated the Fourth Amendment.
Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a sufficiently similar case holding comparable conduct unconstitutional, the court held that Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity and reversed the Second Circuit’s judgment. The ruling narrows the path for plaintiffs relying on generalized excessive-force principles or factually adjacent circuit precedent to overcome qualified immunity.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued the Second Circuit had properly viewed the summary judgment record in Linton’s favor and that Amnesty America gave Zorn notice that using a rear wristlock against a nonviolent, passively resisting protester could violate the Fourth Amendment. The dissent said the court’s summary reversal continued a one-sided qualified immunity approach that too readily shields officers from trial.