In Zorn v. Linton, published March 23, 2026, the Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, reversed a circuit court decision that itself reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Officers informed protesters engaged in a sit-in at a state capitol that they would be arrested for trespassing. The protesters linked arms and refused to leave. The officers removed and arrested the protesters one-by-one. When the defendant officer reached the plaintiff, one of the protesters, she remained seated with her arm interlocked with her fellow protesters. The officer unlinked her arm, put it behind her back in a rear wristlock, and twisted her arm. She exclaimed, “Ow, ow, ow,” while the officer repeatedly asked her to “please stand up.” After she refused, the officer said he would ask her “one more time” and then would use more pain compliance. She continued to refuse. The officer placed pressure on her wrist and lifted her up by her forearm. She continued to jerk her arms and fell back to the floor. When she refused further requests to move, officers picked her up by her arms and legs and carried her outside. The plaintiff alleged resulting physical and psychological injuries. She sued the officer under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the 4th Amendment. The district court granted the officer summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The 2nd Circuit reversed, holding that its decision in a 2004 case clearly established that gratuitous use of a rear wristlock on a protester passively resisting arrest is excessive force.
The court held that the 2nd Circuit erred in concluding the circuit court decision clearly established that the officer’s actions violated the 4th Amendment. A right is not clearly established if existing precedent does not place the constitutional question beyond debate. To find a right is clearly established, courts generally need to identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances was held to have violated the Constitution. The relevant precedent must define the right with a high degree of specificity, so that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply. The 2nd Circuit authority did not satisfy these requirements. The case considered a wide range of allegations of excessive force, which included wrist locks used on protesters to lift them up before throwing one of them to the ground, without warning. Further, the case did not hold that any of these actions violated the 4th Amendment, let alone all of them. It remanded for a jury trial because it was possible a reasonable jury would find that the officers’ use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Reasonable officers would not interpret the decision to establish that using a routine wristlock to move a resisting protester after warning her, without more, violated the 4th Amendment. Even assuming the case establishes the principle that using a rear wristlock on a passively-resisting protestor constitutes excessive force, that principle lacks the high degree of specificity needed to make it clear to officers which actions violate the law.
Three dissenting justices opined that the majority was requiring a precedent involving facts identical to the case at issue, which previous Supreme Court cases had held to be unnecessary.
Leave a Reply