Supreme Court Rolls Back Another Horrible Qualified Immunity Decision By The Fifth Circuit

from the let's-start-this-trending! dept

The Supreme Court has done a lot over the years to shield law enforcement officers from accountability. It has redefined the contours of the qualified immunity defense to make it all but impossible for plaintiffs to succeed. Appeals Courts have been hamstrung by Supreme Court precedent, forced to pretty much ignore the egregious rights violations in front of them in favor of dusting off old decisions to see if any officer violated someone's rights in exactly this way prior to this case.

Since law enforcement officers are apparently unable to exercise judgment on their own, the courts often grant forgiveness to these poor single-cell organisms who couldn't have possibly known that, say, locking a prisoner in a feces-covered cell for days violated the prisoner's rights. And that's the conclusion the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court reached December 2019 in Taylor v. Riojas.

The Fifth Circuit is the worst circuit to bring a federal civil rights violation case. And it's still as awful as ever, even with Judge Don Willett -- who published a scathing dissent in another qualified immunity case -- sitting on the bench.

The only good news is that the Supreme Court may be slowly realizing its expansion of the qualified immunity defense is encouraging courts to give law enforcement officers a pass even when it's painfully clear rights have been violated. Almost a year after the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of prison guards, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. There may have been no case exactly on point, but for the Supreme Court that's not a necessity when there's a clear rights violation.

[N]o reasonable correctional officer could have concluded that, under the extreme circumstances of this case, it was constitutionally permissible to house Taylor in such deplorably unsanitary conditions for such an extended period of time.

This ruling was part of the Supreme Court's docket dispensation. No full opinion was issued. But it sent a message to the Fifth Circuit. And that message has been reinforced with another remand to the Fifth Circuit -- again for granting qualified immunity when it shouldn't have. (h/t Athul Acharya)

McCOY, PRINCE V. ALAMU, TAJUDEEN

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Taylor v. Riojas, 592 U. S. ___ (2020) (per curiam).

The Fifth Circuit handled Prince v. Alamu back in February of last year. Badly. It somehow managed to find that deliberately pepper spraying a prisoner in the eyes in retaliation for the actions of another prisoner was subject to qualified immunity.

Above, we held that the spraying crossed that line. But it was not beyond debate that it did, so the law wasn’t clearly established. This was an isolated, single use of pepper spray.

And that was enough to give the guard a free pass. As the dissenting opinion noted, the only reason qualified immunity wasn't stripped was because the guard didn't use his fist, a baton, or a Taser. That this involved pepper spray was the only thing separating it from being "clearly established."

The Supreme Court is to blame here. It has repeatedly rejected QI cases, telling lower courts they're supposed to read "clearly established" precedent narrowly, rather than find that similar cases (ones not exactly on point) gave government employees enough warning this new and novel violation of rights would be a violation of rights. With this reversal, the Supreme Court is reversing its own instructions. Hopefully this will continue. With enough reversals, qualified immunity will no longer be the accountability copout it has become.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 5th circuit, law enforcement, qualified immunity, supreme court


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 25 Feb 2021 @ 4:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Double standards are bullshit

    And yet somehow ever other profession out there does just fine without a legal shield against lawsuits like that so QI strikes me as trying to get rid of an anthill with a nuke, replacing a minor problem with a much, much worse one.

    If the potential of getting sued is such a huge problem then there are a number of other options available off the top of my head, from 'insurance' to cover lawsuits paid for by individual cops, lower though still painful financial penalties levied against individual officers rather than the department as a while(enough to hurt but not enough to bankrupt someone unless they really cross the line, in which case prison would probably be more appropriate), prospective cops realizing that if the threat of a lawsuit is enough to keep them from doing the job it's probably not a good fit for them...

    As for asset forfeiture I'd put that right up alongside QI on the 'legal abominations' list. I can see how the idea could make sense('You stole this/bought this with stolen money, you don't get to keep it') but with the state it's currently in it's nothing less than legal armed robbery and should be seen and treated as such by the courts.


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.