The Supreme Court ruled 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.”
“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.”
This comes as rumors are swirling that a conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice may step down this year.
Justice Samuel Alito, 75, is the subject of growing speculation that he may step down from the Supreme Court of the United States before the end of President Trump’s current term.
Such a move would allow the administration to nominate a younger conservative replacement who could serve for decades.
Prediction market data has added to the discussion surrounding Alito’s future on the court.
Polymarket, a platform where users wager on political outcomes, has placed the probability of Alito retiring before the end of 2026 at roughly 54 percent, according to Newsweek.
That figure represents a notable increase from earlier in the year, when the odds were below 50 percent. The shift has been attributed to a combination of factors, including Alito’s age, recent health concerns, and the broader political calendar.
Alito has served on the Supreme Court since 2006, when he was appointed by former President George W. Bush to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
He is currently the second-oldest member of the court, behind only Justice Clarence Thomas, who is 76.
The justice has not made any public statements regarding his plans. No formal indication has been given through official channels that he intends to step down.
If Alito were to leave while Republicans control both the White House and the Senate, Trump would be positioned to nominate a successor aligned with the court’s current conservative majority.
The current Supreme Court stands at a 6-3 conservative majority.
Replacing Alito with a younger conservative would not alter that balance but could extend it for decades.