The Supreme Court decided on Monday that a sergeant from the Vermont State Police deserves qualified immunity in a case brought by protesters who claimed they were harmed when officers used wristlocks to remove them from a sit-in at the state Capitol.
In a per curiam opinion that did not identify specific justices, the court overturned a ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Zorn vs. Linton, found that it wasn’t clear that Sgt. Jacob Zorn’s actions violated constitutional rights.
The ruling stated, “The Second Circuit held that Zorn was not entitled to qualified immunity. This decision is going to be reversed.”
Generally, the justices noted that police officers have immunity from civil lawsuits unless previous legal rulings clearly demonstrate that their actions were illegal.
This particular incident started in 2015 when healthcare protesters staged a sit-in during the inauguration of Governor Peter Shumlin at the Vermont State Capitol. When the building was secured, police attempted to arrest demonstrators who refused to vacate. One of the protesters, Shelagh Linton, remained seated with others, and Zorn warned her that he would have to use force. He then placed her arm behind her back and applied pressure to her wrist to assist her in standing. Following this, Linton initiated a lawsuit claiming she suffered both physical and mental injuries.
The Supreme Court remarked on the 2nd Circuit’s heavy reliance on previous cases. Citing an earlier decision in Amnesty America v. West Hartford, the court reiterated that it had not been clearly established that it is unconstitutional to exert a routine wristlock against a resisting protester after providing a warning.
With that perspective, the justices concluded that Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity and overturned the earlier court’s decision.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She contended that the court improperly imposed a “summary revocation,” suggesting that a jury may determine that the officers used excessive force against nonviolent protesters who were simply passively resisting.
Read the order – App users please click here:
This is a developing story. Please check the latest information.
