Supreme Court Ruling on Qualified Immunity

This week, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling regarding qualified immunity, which originated from protests that occurred over a decade ago.

On Monday, the Court issued a judgment in the case Zorn vs. Linton, asserting that a sergeant of the Vermont State Police is entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit tied to a conflict during protests at the Vermont Statehouse in 2015.

In an unsigned opinion, the majority overturned a previous lower court’s decision that had ruled against the police officer’s use of force. The opinion highlighted that the Second Circuit had determined Zorn did not qualify for qualified immunity.

“We reverse,” the ruling stated.

The case involves protests that took place during the Vermont gubernatorial inauguration on January 8, 2015. Shelagh Linton, one of the protesters involved in a sit-in advocating for universal health care, mentioned she anticipated being removed.

After other demonstrators were taken away by police, Sergeant Jacob Zorn approached Linton. When she resisted, Zorn attempted to pull her arm away from the protest’s human chain. Her arm was twisted as a control technique was applied.

Linton later claimed Zorn’s actions led to “physical and psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder.” The court’s opinion noted that officials typically enjoy qualified immunity unless their actions clearly violate established law. Identifying these violations can be quite challenging, requiring both judicial precedent and significant specificity.

The Supreme Court criticized lower courts for relying excessively on the 2004 case of Amnesty America vs. West Hartford, stating it did not sufficiently establish that the specific use of force by Zorn was unconstitutional. It concluded that a reasonable official in Zorn’s position wouldn’t interpret the previous ruling as a violation of constitutional rights, especially since the use of wrist locks after warnings was part of standard procedure.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority view, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent pointed out that the Second Circuit was correct in determining that Zorn should not be granted qualified immunity at this stage. At the very least, the previous judgment didn’t warrant the “extraordinary relief of summary revocation.”