In Zorn v. Linton, the Supreme Court reminded lower courts that a “clearly established” constitutional right is just that – clearly established. Unless a right’s contours are beyond debate, an officer has qualified immunity from suit.
Shela Linton participated in a sit-in at the Vermont state capital. Jacob Zorn asked Linton to disperse. She refused. Officer Zorn said he would use force if she did not comply. Linton held firm, so Officer Zorn used a wristlock to remove her. Linton sued, alleging that Officer Zorn’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive force. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed. It reasoned that Linton had a “clearly established” right to be free from the “gratuitous” use of a wristlock under its decision in Amnesty American v. West Hartford.
The Supreme Court reversed. It pointed out that Amnesty America involved surface-level similarities to the facts at hand. The officers in that case used a wristlock on protestors, sure enough. But the officers did not give a warning and they threw the protestors to the ground. By relying on Amnesty America to find a constitutional violation, the Second Circuit committed a cardinal sin: defining a clearly established right in a high level of generality. Amnesty America didn’t hold that using a wristlock is excessive force. It held that using a wristlock without warning and then throwing a suspect to the ground may be excessive force. And because the second circuit did not cite a case where a court held that an officer who did the same thing as Officer Zorn used excessive force, the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity attached.
The opinion was not without its detractors. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented. In their view, the majority misconstrued Amnesty America’s holding, which referenced both warnings given by the officers and wristlocks as a pain complaint technique. In their view, the majority required too much specificity to find a clearly established right.
Zorn is a reminder that surface-level parallels do not clearly establish constitutional rights. Lower courts must dig deeper to ensure that the parallels clearly establish the right at issue. Otherwise, qualified immunity protects the officer from suit.
