The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Vermont state police sergeant is entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit brought by a protester who said she was injured during a sit-in at the state capitol. The unsigned decision reversed a lower court ruling that had allowed the case to proceed.
In a per curiam opinion in Zorn v. Linton, the justices said existing precedent did not clearly establish that Sgt. Jacob Zorn’s actions violated the Constitution. The court emphasized that officers are generally shielded from civil liability unless prior rulings make the unlawfulness of their conduct “beyond debate,” Fox News reported.
“The Second Circuit held that Zorn was not entitled to qualified immunity,” the court wrote, rejecting claims of excessive force. “We reverse,” the justices added.
The court said the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals failed to identify a sufficiently similar case where an officer’s actions were ruled unconstitutional. That failure, the justices said, meant Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity.
“Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a case where an officer taking similar actions in similar circumstances was held to have violated’ the Constitution, Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity,” the ruling stated. “We grant his petition for writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Second Circuit.”
The case stems from a 2015 protest at the Vermont state capitol during then-Gov. Peter Shumlin’s inauguration. Healthcare protesters staged a sit-in, and after the building closed, police began arresting those who refused to leave.
According to the court, protester Shela Linton remained seated and linked arms with other demonstrators. After warning her he would need to use force, Zorn took her arm, placed it behind her back, applied pressure to her wrist, and lifted her to her feet.
Linton later filed suit, alleging she suffered physical and psychological injuries. The Supreme Court said the appeals court relied too heavily on a prior case, Amnesty America v. West Hartford, which it found did not clearly establish that such conduct violated the Constitution.
The justices said that “using a routine wristlock to move a resistant protester after warning her, without more, violates the Constitution” was not clearly established in prior rulings. On that basis, the court concluded Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued the court improperly intervened through what she called the “extraordinary remedy of a summary reversal.”
“A jury could find that Zorn violated Linton’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights,” Sotomayor wrote. She said the case should have been allowed to proceed to trial.
“The majority today gives officers license to inflict gratuitous pain on a nonviolent protestor even where there is no threat to officer safety or any other reason to do so,” she wrote. “That is plainly inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s fundamental guarantee that officers may only use ‘the amount of force that is necessary’ under the circumstances.”
“Therefore, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor concluded.