Justice Sotomayor Cautions That Recent Ruling May Empower Police to Inflict Unnecessary Force Without Justification

Justice Sonia Sotomayor opened the week at the U.S. Supreme Court with a strong critique of her conservative peers, expressing concern that their decisions have effectively granted law enforcement the power to inflict unnecessary harm on “nonviolent protesters” who remain on government property after hours.

In her series of dissents issued early Monday, Sotomayor highlighted the case of Shela Linton. Linton participated in a 2015 “sit-in” at Vermont’s state capitol advocating for universal healthcare. She was arrested after linking arms with other activists and trespassing in the legislative chamber during nighttime hours.

Joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor argued that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was “plainly inconsistent” with the Fourth Amendment. By granting qualified immunity to Vermont State Police Sgt. Jacob Zorn for arresting Linton, the court, according to Sotomayor, signaled to law enforcement — both state and federal — that they possess “an absolute shield” against accountability for injuring “nonviolent protesters.”

Zorn employed a “rear wristlock” tactic meant for “pain compliance,” which resulted in Linton suffering “permanent damage,” despite her status as a “nonviolent protestor peacefully demonstrating” at the Vermont capitol, Sotomayor explained. The 2nd Court of Appeals had originally ruled that Zorn was not entitled to qualified immunity against Linton’s lawsuit, but the Supreme Court’s conservative majority disagreed.

The per curiam decision noted that because the Second Circuit failed to pinpoint a precedent where an officer’s similar actions in comparable situations were deemed unconstitutional, Zorn was rightfully granted qualified immunity. Thus, the court granted his petition for writ of certiorari and overturned the Second Circuit’s judgment, according to the official statement.

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials from civil liability for actions performed within their official capacity, unless those actions violate “clearly established” constitutional rights under circuit precedent. And here, Sotomayor stated that existing 2nd Circuit precedent put Zorn on notice that “using a rear wristlock against a nonviolent protestor would violate the protestor’s constitutional rights” through excessive force.

Sotomayor observed that the Supreme Court’s reversal of the 2nd Circuit, where she sat as a judge for a decade, immunized alleged facts like Zorn whispering to Linton that “she should have called her legislator” as the sergeant “applied pressure to Linton’s wrist and lifted her upward,” leaving her with “permanent damage to her left wrist and shoulder,” PTSD, depression, and anxiety.

“The Second Circuit correctly held that summary judgment must be denied because a jury could find that Zorn violated Linton’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights,” the liberal justice dissented, warning the majority’s quickness to reverse a qualified immunity grant could amount to a trend.

“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. 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,” the justice concluded.

Linton, the co-founder of the Root Social Justice Center in Vermont, had alleged that Zorn “targeted and intentionally assaulted” her “because I am black.”