Clearly Wrong Decisions on "Clearly Established Law"

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two summary reversals today. These are cases where the decision of a lower court is so clearly wrong that no merits briefing or oral argument is needed.

Both cases involve rules limiting the ability of federal courts to second-guess actions of state officials based on rules that were not established at the time of the action. Both are decisions of circuits divisible by three. This movie has played on the Supreme Court Channel more times than the Harry Potter movies have played on cable TV.

In Shoop v. Hill, No. 18-56, the Sixth Circuit accepted a collateral attack on a 1993 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court because it was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas. That was "plainly improper" under an Act of Congress that limits such collateral attacks to decisions that were, at the time, "contrary to ... clearly established Federal law."

In City of Escondido v. Emmons, No. 17-1660, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity to two police officers who responded to a domestic violence call and required them to go to trial. It was uncontested on appeal that the officers had probable cause to arrest Marty Emmons, but the claim was that one of them used excessive force when he tackled Emmons after Emmons "brushed past them," although there was no apparent injury.

Why did the Ninth rule against the officer who used no force at all? Remarkably, it didn't say. Isn't some explanation in order before reversing a judgment as to one party? The Supreme Court thinks so and finds the absence "quite puzzling." As to the tackling officer, the Ninth committed the very frequent error of defining the "clearly established law" at too high a level of generality. How many times does the Supreme Court have to reverse on this basis before the courts of appeals clean up their acts?

Clearly Wrong Decisions on "Clearly Established Law" curated from Crime and Consequences Blog