The bloom is off the qualified immunity rose. Except it was never a rose. Quite the opposite. cato.org/blog/zombifica…

This horrific case involves a cop shooting plaintiff's non-threatening, 40lb bulldog right in front of him AFTER tasing it into immobility. The officer's actions can fairly be described as psychotic, and it appears he's still roaming around with a gun and a badge. Terrifying.

There’s a good reason police, prosecutors, and other govt officials insist on being held to a radically lower standard of accountability than the rest of us. And it has nothing to do with fair notice, split-second decisions, or avoiding financial ruin. cato.org/policy-analysi…

🧵 I believe there was a glaring structural error (meaning no need to object in order to preserve for appeal) in Trump's hush-money trial. Here's the argument in sum: 1. Juries possess certain constitutional powers and prerogatives, most of which are not spelled out in text.

Are some govt officials petty, thin-skinned crybabies who will grossly abuse their power by unleashing the criminal justice system against anyone who crosses them? Absolutely. And it should be MUCH easier to sue those people to the moon and back. Progress. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

If the Supreme Court can giveth, the Supreme Court can taketh away. They should do qualified immunity next.

Breed a Sardauker with a Reaver, and you’ll have some idea what it’s like to square off against federal bureaucrats in court. The Jarkesy and Loper Bright decisions exposed the difference between those who’ve crossed swords with govt agencies and those who’ve only read about it.

Absolute presidential immunity, absolute prosecutorial immunity, and qualified immunity walk into a bar…

JCSchwartzProf ShieldedBook Of course, the silver-lining here is that, as Procarceral Twitter is always quick to assure us, we know *precisely* often this kind of thing happens, and it’s not enough to worry about—or to prompt any fundamental changes in policing or police accountability.

‘Barnes v. Felix Brief: Officers Must Be Held Accountable for Needless Deadly Force’ Alongside Cato Institute & Policing Equity, LEAP in collaboration has filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s decision. Read more: bit.ly/3Wml4Ec

Another CA5 QI case where there's a very sharp disagreement about video evidence between the majority (which denies QI) and Judge Jones' dissent. Judge Don Willett says that a real jury should decide this kind of dispute, not a JV jury. ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…

Raffi Melkonian Judge Don Willett Amen Judge Don Willett. Also I’m stealing the line “junior-varsity jury.”

Carl Cecere Raffi Melkonian Judge Don Willett I probably shouldn’t operate heavy machinery or a motor vehicle for the next 6-8 hours after reading that line. Right into my veins!

CA5 Denies QI where a citizen was shot by the police and the officer made up a number of lies about the facts, despite the existence of a surveillance video. ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub…

Watch: Cato Constitution Day panel on novel #SCOTUS constitutional questions with Clark Neily on mooting a no-fly list case, John Stinneford on Grants Pass, Ilya Somin on Sec. 3 disqualification, @walterolson.bsky.social moderating cato.org/multimedia/eve…

Holy mackerel SCOTUS granted cert in a Fourth Amendment case: supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?fi…

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear Barnes v. Felix. Read Matthew P. Cavedon and Clark Neily's blog sharing their thoughts on the case. "Yes, the law should respect officers’ need to sometimes make quick judgments and respond decisively to threats. But it should also

I didn’t vote for him, but I feel like the president-elect might be particularly receptive to the idea of addressing the extraordinary overrepresentation of former prosecutors on the bench. Because reasons. cato.org/study/are-disp…

If the only way you can get a conviction is by falsely representing to jurors that they “must” convict if the govt meets its burden of proof, or they lack the power to acquit against the evidence; or by striking potential jurors who know those things to be false—that’s a tell.

Obviously the cop who fired this round can’t be held liable—even if it was done deliberately, with malice, and in violation of the 1Am. But why? (If it took you more than 5 seconds to come up with a doctrinally sound answer, then you are emphatically *not* Article III material.)