Supreme Court Finds Qualified Immunity for Police Officer Sued for Excessive Force by Protester and more...

Supreme Court Finds Qualified Immunity for Police Officer Sued for Excessive Force by Protester

The Supreme Court recently weighed in on the issue of qualified immunity for a police officer who was sued under the civil rights statute for allegedly using excessive force in removing a person from a protest. Zorn v. Linton.

Protestors staged a sit-in at the state capitol on the day of the Vermont Governor's inauguration. When the capitol closed for the day, police officers informed the protesters that they needed to leave or would be arrested for trespassing. When they refused to leave, officers removed them one-by-one. When one of the protesters refused to stand up, a police officer took her arm, put it behind her back, placed pressure on her wrist, and lifted her to her feet. The protester sued the police officer for using excessive force, claiming the use of a "rear wristlock" during the arrest injured her arm and caused psychological disorders. The district court held in favor of the officer, finding he had qualified immunity for his actions. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the "gratuitous" use of a rear wristlock on a protester who was passively resisting arrest constituted excessive force, so the police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. The officer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court disagreed with the court of appeals and held that the police officer did have qualified immunity. The Court noted that government officials have qualified immunity from suit under the civil rights statute (1983) unless their conduct violates clearly established law. Because the court of appeals failed to identify any case in the circuit where an officer taking similar action (rear wristlock) in a similar circumstance (removing a protester for trespass after repeated warnings), the Supreme Court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions.

Three Justices filed a dissenting opinion, finding that the officer should not be entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim because prior case law had established that using a rear wristlock as a "pain compliance technique" against a nonviolent protester would violate the protester's constitutional rights.

Supreme Court Allows Civil Rights Challenge to City's Protest Ordinance to Move Forward

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion relating to a challenge to a City ordinance that required individuals participating in protests to stay within a "designated protest area" in Olivier v. City of Brandon.

Olivier was a street preacher in Mississippi who often shared his religious views on City sidewalks. In 2019, the City adopted an ordinance requiring anyone participating in protests or demonstrations to stay within a designated protest area. Olivier was arrested for violating the ordinance and pled no contest and was fined, given one year of probation, and a suspended 10 day prison sentence that would be served only if he violated the ordinance during his probation period. Although he did not appeal the fine or sentence, he did file a section 1983 civil rights lawsuit against the City to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance. Specifically, he argued that the ordinance violated the First Amendment's free speech clause because it confined speakers to a designated protest area, and he sought an injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing the ordinance against him in the future. The district court and court of appeals dismissed his case based on an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision that prohibits the use of the section 1983 to challenge the validity of a prior conviction or sentence.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts, and reversed their decision, allowing Olivier's lawsuit to move forward. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that Olivier was not challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence. Instead, he was seeking relief from future prosecutions for violations of the ordinance, so its prior decision barring 1983 relief did not apply. The Court did not weigh in on the question of whether the ordinance was constitutional or not, remanding it back to the district court to make that determination.

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 104: Not in My Park!

In Quorum Forum Podcast Episode 104: Not in My Park! Regulating Controversial Park Activities, Ancel Glink’s Tyler Smith, Eugene Bolotnikov, and Katie Nagy take the stage at the 2026 IAPD/IPRA Soaring to New Heights Conference. The Ancel Glink "Not In My Park" team discusses the legal complexities of managing potentially controversial activities in public spaces, ranging from the rapid rise of e-bikes and e-scooters to the evolving landscape of public camping regulations and the "noise" issues surrounding pickleball courts. This episode features live audio from their conference session, providing practical strategies for park districts and municipalities to regulate these activities while balancing individual rights and public safety.

Another AI Hallucination Case

Although today's case summary isn't related to local government issues, it is an important reminder to be careful in relying on AI (artificial intelligence) for legal work, particularly in filings with the court.

In Dec v. Markwayne Mullin, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a challenge by a Polish citizen who was denied a waiver of the waiting period for a family-based visa that requires a person to leave the country and remain abroad for ten years. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) denied her waiver request and she sued. The district court dismissed her lawsuit, holding that the applicable federal law precludes judicial review of agency decisions on waiver requests. She then appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the dismissal of her case.

In addition to upholding the dismissal of her case, the Seventh Circuit also addressed deficiencies in the appellate brief filed on her behalf by her attorney. The Court noted that her brief cited two cases that do not exist and included an imaginary quotation, which the Court noted had "tell-tale signs of AI hallucinations" (although the plaintiff's attorney argued she did not use AI in her brief). The Court acknowledged that courts have been grappling with the use of generative AI in briefs filed with the court, particularly when it produces AI hallucinations and non-existent case citations. The Court expressed its concerns, particularly that trained lawyers are failing to check the accuracy of legal citations and quotations in their filings with the court. The Court was not only concerned about the plaintiffs' counsel inclusion of these hallucinated cases, but also the fact that opposing counsel in the case (DHS attorneys) failed to catch these errors and bring them to the attention of the court.

The Court's discussion is a reminder to all lawyers and parties to litigation that they exercise caution in their use of AI in drafting briefs filed with the court and to double-check their legal arguments and any supporting citations. That cautionary reminder is not restricted to the attorneys filing with the court, but also to opposing counsel who fail to catch these errors.

• View comments • Track comments •

Reminder of Updated Web Accessibility Requirements

In April 2024, the Department of Justice issued a final rule updating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations to ensure that state and local governments’ web content is accessible to persons with disabilities.

Under the new rule, local governments must ensure their websites and mobile applications meet the technical standards of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, Level AA. An ADA fact sheet on the rule is available here.

The deadline to comply with the rule depends on the population reported for the local government in the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau data:

State and local government size	Compliance date
0 to 49,999 persons	April 26, 2027
Special district governments	April 26, 2027
50,000 or more persons	April 24, 2026

Local governments should reach out to their legal counsel if they have questions about compliance with these new regulations.

Post Authored by Katie Nagy, Ancel Glink

Municipal Minute