The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a Vermont state police sergeant is entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit brought by a protester who said she was injured when an officer used a wristlock to remove her from a sit-in at the state capitol.
In a per curiam opinion unsigned, the court reversed the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Zorn v. Linton, holding that existing precedent did not clearly establish that Sgt. Jacob Zorn's specific conduct violated the Constitution.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative legal commentators and law enforcement advocates praised the decision as a proper application of qualified immunity doctrine. They argue that officers cannot be held liable unless there is clearly established law specifically addressing their exact conduct, a standard designed to protect police from being second-guessed in the heat of their duties.
The justices said officers are generally shielded from civil liability unless prior case law put the unlawfulness of their actions beyond debate. The court's majority found that the 2nd Circuit relied too heavily on its earlier decision in Amnesty America v. West Hartford, which did not clearly establish that using a routine wristlock to move a resistant protester after warning her, without more, violates the Constitution.
What the Left Is Saying
Civil liberties advocates and progressive legal scholars expressed concern about the ruling's impact on accountability for police conduct during peaceful protests. The court's decision to grant qualified immunity based on a narrow reading of precedent could make it harder for protesters to hold officers accountable for excessive force, they argue.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued the court had improperly stepped in with the extraordinary remedy of a summary reversal and said a jury could find the officer used excessive force against a nonviolent protester engaged in passive resistance.
What the Numbers Show
The case arose from a 2015 sit-in by healthcare protesters at the Vermont capitol on Gov. Peter Shumlin's inauguration day. The protester, Shela Linton, remained seated and linked arms with others after the building closed. Zorn warned her he would have to use force, then took her arm, placed it behind her back, applied pressure to her wrist and lifted her to her feet. Linton later sued, alleging physical and psychological injuries. The 2nd Circuit had previously ruled that Zorn was not entitled to qualified immunity before the Supreme Court reversed that decision.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's ruling in Zorn v. Linton reinforces the high bar for holding police officers liable in civil lawsuits under qualified immunity. The decision underscores that plaintiffs must point to existing precedent directly addressing the specific conduct at issue, not just general principles against excessive force. Legal observers will watch to see if this ruling influences similar pending cases involving protests and police conduct.