BREAKING: Boston Celtics All-NBA star Jayson Tatum will play this season and could make his debut on Friday against the Dallas Mavericks – less than 10 months after surgery for a ruptured Achilles tendon.
In each of these cases identified by the district court, the court found that, on the plaintiffs’ version of the facts, law enforcement officers had used excessive force against individuals who had stopped resisting, were attempting to flee, and/or were only “passively resisting, i.e. . . . not complying, but . . . also not attempting to fight back.” With the possible exception of Yates, which involved the deployment of a taser, we agree that this collection of cases clearly establishes that Deputy Wright’s use of force would be excessive if the facts taken most favorably to Barricks were established. See Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) (recognizing that for a law to be clearly established in the context of 11 qualified immunity, we do “not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate”). And although there may be some factual distinctions with the case currently on appeal, these cases surely provide particularized examples of constitutional violations involving the use of excessive force “under similar circumstances” to those in the altercation between Barricks and Deputy Wright. White, 580 U.S. at 79.
4th Cir.: it was clearly established law that officer could not punch surrendering arrestee twelve times in the face, causing several fractures and a brain bleed.
Immediately after the arrest, officer told his girlfriend he "fucked his face up."
No QI.
www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251...
Smith v. Scott is set for conference. The case asks whether officers acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment by using bodyweight restraint on a potentially armed, resisting suspect, and whether the lower court wrongly denied qualified immunity.
The Ninth Circuit’s reading of the statutory language here, as Judge Graber’s dissent and Judge Fletcher’s statement respecting denial of rehearing en banc pointed out, is nonsensical. The Court should have granted cert.
What a week to be teaching war powers in constitutional law
No. 24-10755 In the en banc poll, eight judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Jones, Smith, Richman, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson), and nine voted against rehearing (Chief Judge Elrod, and Judges Stewart, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Douglas, and Ramirez).
5th Cir., 9-8, will not rehear en banc a case in which the panel denied QI for officer who shot and killed a man who was fleeing because he had a gun in his hand.
Judges Ho and Oldham write dissents from the denial of rehearing en banc.
www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...
NEW: The Supreme Court strikes down President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. https://to.pbs.org/4kIlmjo
Experts fear the vaccine-preventable virus has regained a foothold and that the U.S. may soon follow Canada in losing the achievement of having eliminated it.
https://to.pbs.org/3NunWgA
Academia tests your scheduling skills. Half of my day is spent sending my availability and calendar invites for what I am going to do on other days.
What about 7 cups? Is that overachieving?
When I was practicing, a local attorney would exclusively send messages via fax. They were often just short, scribbled handwritten notes. We kept the fax machine stocked with paper just for her.
Like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, it is a comfort knowing I can count on a Michigan Law Review rejection.
“Late Friday night, the Fifth Circuit adopted the extreme minority view—that the government can indefinitely detain without bond millions of non-citizens who have been here for generations; who have never committed a crime; and who pose neither a risk of flight nor any threat to public safety.”
In a recent episode of #HistoryInFocus, @danieljstory.bsky.social revisits historian Elizabeth Hinton’s exploration of W.E.B. Du Bois’s 1935 magnum opus Black Reconstruction. We also hear from Eric Foner, Chad Williams, Sue Mobley, and Kendra Field. 🗃️
Thus, rather than require such adjudications, the Department is changing its regulations to provide the Board more flexibility in reviewing appeals. Instead, for appeals taken from decisions issued after this IF becomes effective, as explained in Section IV.A of this preamble, the default will be summary dismissal unless a majority of current Board members vote to consider the appeal on the merits. And such dismissals will occur quickly—within 15 days of filing the appeal—allowing aliens to seek Federal court review expeditiously, rather than potentially waiting for years for a Board decision that in the vast majority of cases would affirm the underlying Immigration Judge decision.
🚨HOLY CRAP. The Trump admin just took a SLEDGEHAMMER to due process, largely eliminating the Board of Immigration Appeals process and MANDATING DISMISSAL of ALL appeals (which cost $1,000 thanks to OBBBA) filed after tomorrow unless a majority of the BIA votes to hear the case.
Wherein Judge Lawrence VanDyke writes what amounts to a judicial essay decrying Roe v. Wade, nearly four years after it was overruled. Appears he sought en banc review for the sole purpose of writing a statement regarding the denial of review….all while decrying judicial activism.
This is an obvious violation of the Constitution. Precedent should not be required here. Nonsense.
In a police brutality case that drew national attention, Sean Grayson fatally shot the Black woman in her home in 2024 after she had called 911 to investigate a possible prowler.
The civil rights law that has allowed lawsuits against local and state police doesn’t apply to federal agents.
Just another part of the totality of the circumstances for use of force.
Not sure how to feel about this, but I think maybe good?
Seems like a good case for invoking the obvious violation exception to qualified immunity, which I wrote about in 2024 in the Washington Law Review. Requiring parallel precedent here appears unnecessary to show notice of the state of the law.
This is the problem with these injunctive relief requests. Even if the judiciary agrees that ICE is acting unlawfully, can (should) the judiciary be the de facto commander of executive branch law enforcement agencies? Not sure that “don’t violate the Constitution” is permissible relief.
Teaching Powell v. McCormack & US Term Limits v. Thornton in Con Law this week. I thought I might have at least one day that didn’t relate in some way to current events. I was wrong.
The Supreme Court has agreed this term to hear the fewest number of cases since the Civil War. While #SCOTUS's emergency/shadow docket often gets flak for overwhelming the court, some say this term's caseload is part of a bigger, more concerning trend. www.law360.com/articles/243...
Fantastic piece from @stevevladeck.bsky.social & @barryfriedman1.bsky.social on how to hold federal law enforcement accountable. As they note, an even better solution would be for Congress to codify Bivens.
My family in Tennessee assures me that grocery stores are already out of milk and bread.
NEW: For law students and young attorneys, state supreme court clerkships are among the most exciting jobs available, but the application process can be confusing. @jakemazeitis.bsky.social explains which courts regularly hire term law clerks and roughly how many opportunities might be available.
Constitutional Torts: “It Just Happens”
Law and order that exempts law enforcement is not law and order. It’s power without responsibility. Constitutional accountability should not be partisan.
