tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52647993068028070512024-03-18T12:37:32.360-04:00Wasserman's Civil RightsThe very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-21473596962049973232024-03-18T12:36:00.004-04:002024-03-18T12:36:52.387-04:00Immunity Papers<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/scan_wasserma_2024-03-18-12-25-27.pdf">Here</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/scan_wasserma_2024-03-18-12-26-50.pdf">here</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/scan_wasserma_2024-03-18-12-28-02.pdf">here</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/scan_wasserma_2024-03-18-12-28-58.pdf">here</a>, and <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/scan_wasserma_2024-03-18-12-30-05.pdf">here</a>.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-2515115080318553402024-03-18T10:26:00.003-04:002024-03-18T10:53:25.767-04:00For Tuesday<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-15.m4a">Monday audio</a>. FIU will host a panel on judicial clerkships at lunchtime tomorrow (Tuesday), featuring Judges Jordan and Rosenbaum of the 11th Circuit; please plan to attend if you have any remote interest in clerking.<br /></p><p>Prep the remainder of Chapter 6. We will get through much of it tomorrow, with some left for next Monday.<br /></p><p><span> </span>• What is the connection between congruence and proportionality and sovereign immunity? <br /></p><p><span> </span>• What does C&P allow Congress to do under § 5? Given the laws that have been valid and not valid under § 5, what explains C&P?<br /></p><p><span> </span><span> </span>• Consider whether the following claims can proceed under the Americans With Disabilities Act:</p><p><span> </span><span> </span>• Attorney working at Greenberg Traurig<br /></p><p><span> </span><span> </span>• Attorney working for the Miami-Dade County Attorney</p><p><span> </span><span> </span>• Attorney working for the Office of the Florida Attorney General</p><p><span> </span>• Can states be sued under § 1983?</p><p><span> </span>• What is the cause of action in <i>Ex parte Young</i> and how does it affect sovereign immunity? Why is <i>EpY</i> a "fiction" and why is it not a fiction? How does <i>EpY</i> connect with § 1983? </p><p>Finally, circling back to the <i>Midwest Bank</i> Puzzle and what you should be looking for: Have we discussed any doctrine under which a plaintiff can hold government liable for harm caused by a private person (note: the state-action cases are about holding the purportedly private actor liable)? How might that apply to the facts of <i>Midwest</i>?<br /></p><p> </p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-84589549548645020632024-03-15T11:33:00.003-04:002024-03-15T11:33:31.027-04:00Social Media Cases Decided<p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf">Lindtke</a> (claim against city manager) and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-324_09m1.pdf">O'Connor-Raitliff</a> (school-board members). <i>Lindtke</i> is the main case, setting (unanimously) a standard for when officials act under color. The Court vacated and remanded <i>O'Connor </i>for reconsideration in light of <i>Lindtke</i>.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-20353348155814392632024-03-13T11:55:00.001-04:002024-03-13T11:55:18.601-04:00Spot the problems with the constitutional claims<p>In <a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/document/X4I78PP73SP996B9LNI1Q6N4AS3/download?imagename=1">Fakhreddine v. University of Pennsylvania</a>. Plaintiffs are pro-Palestine Penn faculty members seeking to enjoin the university from complying with information requests (not, yet, subpoenas) from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce (same committee that held the crazy December hearing with the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn).</p><p>Have at it.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-77567516792849180782024-03-12T10:37:00.001-04:002024-03-12T10:37:13.967-04:00For Monday<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-12.m4a">Tuesday audio</a>. <u>Immunity</u> Papers due at the beginning of class Monday.</p><p>We will finish the <u>Muni</u> puzzles, then move to Part B and <u>State Liability</u>.</p><p><span> </span>• What is sovereignty and what is sovereign immunity? Who is and is not sovereign?</p><p><span> </span>• What are the three competing theories of the meaning of the 11th Amendment? How would each theory handle the following claims:</p><p><span><span> </span> </span>• <i>South Carolina Citizen v. Georgia</i> on a federal claim</p><p><span> <span> </span> </span>• <i>South Carolina Citizen v. Georgia</i> on a state claim</p><p><span> <span> </span> </span>• <i>Louisiana Citizen v. Louisiana</i> on a federal claim</p><p><span> <span> </span> </span>• <i>Louisiana Citizen v. Louisiana</i> on a state claim</p><p><span> </span>• What is abrogation and when is it permitted or not permitted and under what powers? How does abrogation different from "waiver by plan of the convention?</p><p><span> </span>• Consider whether the following claims can proceed under the Americans With Disabilities Act:</p><p><span> </span><span> </span>• Attorney working at Greenberg Traurig<br /></p><p><span> </span><span> </span>• Attorney working for the Miami-Dade County Attorney</p><p><span> </span><span> </span>• Attorney working for the Office of the Florida Attorney General</p><p><span> </span>• Can states be sued under § 1983?<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-27477277941705332572024-03-11T10:49:00.002-04:002024-03-11T14:03:21.193-04:00For Tuesday<p><a href="ttps://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-11.m4a">Monday audio</a>. Hopefully we get one more day outside tomorrow. <u>Immunity</u> papers due next Monday.</p><p>We continue with <u>Municipal Liability</u>:<br /></p><p><span> </span>• We left off on what, before we get to anything, on what is necessary to state a claim against a municipality claim.</p><p><span> </span>• What is "policy" and "policymaker?" What are the four ways a plaintiff can establish municipal liability? How should we understand "Failure to ___" as a theory of liability?</p><p><span> </span>• How does qualified immunity affect municipal liability?</p><p><span> </span>• What is the argument that respondeat superior liability is consistent with the text and history of the 1871 Act?</p><p><span> </span>• How do municipal interests diverge from individual interests in litigation?</p><p><span> </span>• Be creative in thinking about Puzzle # 3. The case requires you to circle back to prior material in the course. <br /></p><p>I hope to get a bit into <u>State Liability</u> tomorrow; just prep §§ 6.09 and 6.10, which will give the basic overview of sovereign immunity and the 11th Amendment.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-88172647574503271552024-03-09T15:20:00.002-05:002024-03-09T15:30:46.007-05:00Interesting Immunity Cases<p>After the jump, two interesting immunity decisions from the Ninth Circuit. When you encourage your friends to take this class next spring, tell them to expect to see this case in arguments.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p>1) Recall <i>Boquist v. Courtney</i> in the Legislative Immunity puzzles of Chapter 5--the Oregon legislature limited a member's access to the chamber because of some allegedly threatening statements he had made in the press.</p><p>Sen. Boquist is back. He and another senator were sanctioned for excessive absences (both were part of a mass walkout by the Senate minority, intending to deprive the body of a quorum). Pursuant to a state constitutional amendment denying ballot access to legislators who accumulate unexcused absences, the secretary of state disqualifies both from appearing on the ballot for reelection. The <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/02/29/23-4292.pdf">court held</a> that the legislative walkout constitutes a legislative act and thus cannot be the basis for a § 1983 action. The court distinguished <i>Courtney</i> (the case from our puzzle) because the walkout is more legislative than statements to the press.</p><p>Note the court's questionable approach to this case and to its understanding of <i>Courtney</i>. The court focuses on the legislative nature of the plaintiff's actions (the statement to the press, the walkout) rather than the legislative nature of the defendant's actions (limiting access to the floor, counting his absences, excluding him from the ballot). That difference explains the court's justification for the prior case--it looked to the plaintiff's non-legislative speech, rather than the legislature's legislative punishment.</p><p>If the proper focus is the defendant, it adds another layer to the current case. The Secretary of State barring someone from the ballot is obviously not a legislative act. But it relies on a legislative act (the recording of absences) and would require evidence of that legislative act or evidence questioning that legislative act; this would seem to be prohibited by a <i>Brewster</i>-type evidentiary bar.</p><p>2) Social workers failed to notify a woman about a dependency hearing over her minor child and made false statements about the reason for failing to provide notice. The <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/03/05/22-56054.pdf">court rejected</a> absolute quasi-prosecutorial and qualified immunity. Failing to provide notice and lying about are not prosecutorial actions (defendants would have been protected had the suit challenged the decision to initiate the dependency proceeding). And it is clearly established (including based on <i>Hardwick</i> <i>v. Cty. of Orange</i>, discussed in the reading) that government officials cannot lie to courts.<br /></p><p><br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-36117234638033633612024-03-06T08:35:00.002-05:002024-03-06T08:35:21.671-05:00Medicaid and § 1983<p>The <a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/document/X1SIQBOS3GF8GB8ET326IJEE776/download">Fourth Circuit held</a>, for the third time, that Medicaid's "free-choice-of-provider" provision can be enforced through a § 1983 "and laws" action. That provision guarantees Medicaid patients the right to choose their health-care provider; the lawsuit challenges South Carolina's attempt to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds (this is an ongoing issue in many states). The court had previously reached this conclusion, but the judgment was vacated for reconsideration in light of <i>Talevski</i>. The court reads <i>Talevski</i> as follows:</p><p></p><blockquote>We agree that enforceable rights under § 1983 are dependent on congressional authorization, which under no circumstances may be casually implied. While Talevski offered an illuminating analysis of the issue before us and a useful new example of provisions enforceable via § 1983, we do not read it as toppling the existing doctrinal regime. And even if Talevski could be read as embracing a wholly new test, we hold that the free-choice-of-provider provision passes it</blockquote><br /><p></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-64648135178501431102024-03-04T10:36:00.002-05:002024-03-04T17:00:49.203-05:00For Tuesday<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-44.m4a">Monday audio</a>.<br /></p><p>We will finish <u>QI</u> tomorrow; papers will be due next Tuesday. What are the benefits and drawbacks to flipping the QI presumption--no immunity unless the right is clearly established? We then will work through the QI and Immunity Review Puzzles.</p><p>We then turn to <b>Entity Liability</b>, beginning with § 6.01 and <u>Municipal Liability</u>. What are the arguments for and against municipal liability, given the purposes of § 1983 and the problems of individual immunity? What is the textual and policy basis for municipal liability and what are the limitations on that liability?<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-77223274740194321082024-03-04T10:30:00.001-05:002024-03-04T10:30:58.773-05:00State-created danger and immunity<p>From the First Circuit in <a href="file:///Users/howardwasserman/Desktop/Johnson_v._City_of_Biddeford.pdf">Johnson v. City of Biddeford</a>. This shows how courts approach the two prongs of immunity and the connection between them. And it again shows courts dealing with the scope of state-created danger.</p><p>This was an oral argument case for class a few years ago when it was in the court of appeals the first time, on the existence and scope of SCD.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-20335207819367268812024-03-01T17:09:00.001-05:002024-03-01T17:09:06.821-05:00Sometimes the US does prosecute § 242<p>From the <a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111006782.pdf">Tenth Circuit</a>, affirming the sentence on an 8th Amendment violation. Pretty egregious and straight-forward facts--a corrections officer placed two African American inmates in a cell block dominated by members of the Aryan Brotherhood, then ordered the cell doors left open.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-27332029288541590982024-02-20T11:04:00.002-05:002024-02-20T11:04:43.827-05:00For our return from break<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-41.m4a">Tuesday audio</a>. Hopefully we will continue to have outdoor weather.</p><p>We continue with <u>Qualified Immunity</u> and the § 5.21 all-immunity review puzzle. My best guess is this will take both Monday and Tuesday when we return. What purposes and what problems does the clearly established requirement present? What are the solutions to qualified immunity (if indeed it is a problem) and who should create them?</p><p>Enjoy your break.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-64963714896652404922024-02-19T10:50:00.004-05:002024-03-01T17:05:53.847-05:00You can't write this stuff<p><a href="https://forward.com/fast-forward/583839/photo-lawsuit-gun-israel-gassman/?utm_source=The+Forward+Association&utm_campaign=ef07e1aa1b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_10_24_08_43_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-aaa3b6e98a-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D">An actual coming § 1983 action</a>.</p><p>But now let's try to fit it back into today's conversation. Imagine Ms. Gassman (Sydney, did someone change their name???) works for the DA. </p><p>So two possibilities arising from the particular line defendant and her relationship with the DA. When does immunity attach?<br /></p><p><span> </span>1) Ms. Gassman brings this same suit against this DA.</p><p><span> </span>2) The DA assigns Ms. Gassman to prosecute and obtain a conviction against a Palestinian defendant. The defendant learns of the photo in her office and sues the DA for damages for discrimination in appointing Ms. Gassman to prosecute, believing the choice motivated by discrimination.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-66901400898319240722024-02-19T10:36:00.002-05:002024-02-19T10:36:26.147-05:00For Tuesday<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-40.m4a">Monday audio</a>. Back outside tomorrow, as I expect another nice day.</p><p>We will finish the <u>Prosecutorial Immunity</u> Puzzles. Think about the "absence of jurisdiction" idea in <i>Anilao</i> (Puzzle # 3) and how that argues for or against immunity in that case.</p><p>We then move to <u>Qualified Immunity</u>, which is almost certainly the highest-profile doctrine--and the one most criticized across the political spectrum. How did the doctrine evolve and why? What are the targets of criticism?</p><p>Also, see the <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/22-6004/22-6004-2024-02-15.pdf?ts=1708030832">Sixth Circuit case</a> I mentioned, holding that parole board members enjoy quasi-judicial immunity. The court includes a nice discussion of we talked about in class today--how to understand immunity for something as seemingly routine as scheduling.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-24535320476573590672024-02-13T13:13:00.002-05:002024-02-13T13:13:21.714-05:00Bivens Papers<p> Folks went big with the titles. <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/scan_wasserma_2024-02-13-13-03-16.pdf">Here</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/scan_wasserma_2024-02-13-13-04-19.pdf">here</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/scan_wasserma_2024-02-13-13-05-25.pdf">here</a>, and <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/scan_wasserma_2024-02-13-13-06-26.pdf">here</a>.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-77327997802333233332024-02-13T11:17:00.000-05:002024-02-13T11:17:55.389-05:00For Moday<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-34.m4a">Tuesday audio</a>.</p><p>We will continue with <u>Judicial Process Immunity</u>, so prep everything in Part B of Chapter 5. How do the "trappings" of judicial process cut in <i>Gibson</i>? How does <i>Stump v. Sparkman</i> affect resolution of <i>Gibson</i>? Why is prosecutorial immunity more controversial than, for example, judicial immunity? How does the concept of "jurisdiction" affect both judicial and prosecutorial immunity?<br /></p><p>We will begin <u>Qualified Immunity</u> on Tuesday.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-70114005322642098492024-02-12T10:33:00.004-05:002024-02-12T10:33:47.995-05:00For Tuesday<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-33.m4a">Monday audio</a>. <i>Bivens</i> papers due at the beginning of class. We will continue to be outside if the weather cooperates, at least for a few more weeks.</p><p>We continue with the Puzzles for <u>Legislative Immunity</u>. We then more to <u>Judicial Process Immunity</u>, covering judicial (which will be our main focus tomorrow) and prosecutorial.</p><p><br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-29716421788603308822024-02-06T17:41:00.003-05:002024-02-06T17:41:29.748-05:00RPI Papers<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/bid-1945.pdf">Here</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/bid-1912.pdf">here</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/bid-1263.pdf">here</a>, and <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/bid-1114.pdf">here</a>.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-4840718101145579802024-02-06T11:18:00.002-05:002024-02-06T11:20:52.281-05:00How bad has Bivens gotten<p>Pretty bad, says the <a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110994748.pdf">Tenth Circuit</a>, in recognizing that a <i>Bivens</i> claim is not available because the US Marshal Service is different from the ATF predecessor with a different statutory mission and internal grievances suffice. The court cites <i>Byrd v. Lamb</i> in discussing (but not relying on) the meaningfulness of the events happening inside or outside the plaintiff's home.<br /></p><p>The opinion, written by a GWB appointee, takes pains to highlight (including through choice of language) how ridiculous this seems but how hamstrung they are by the Court's recent decisions.</p><p>Keep an eye for this in illustrating the back-and-forth between SCOTUS and lower courts. SCOTUS often will do something, including narrowing some area of law, that the lower courts run with to narrow even further, too much for SCOTUS's taste. SCOTUS will take a case to come out the other way to rebalance things a bit. We can understand recent qualified immunity decisions (stay tuned in two weeks) this way. We can understand <i>Talevski</i> (one § 1983 and laws claims) this way. So do not be surprised if the Court takes a case similar to this one as an opportunity to signal to lower courts not to go too far afield. Or to finally kill <i>Bivens</i> once and for all.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-18706913344741100752024-02-06T10:40:00.001-05:002024-02-06T10:40:25.908-05:00Presidential Immunity<p>The <a href="https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rnRY1tIPdeSw/v0">D.C. Circuit held</a> that Donald Trump does not enjoy absolute presidential immunity from prosecution for his conduct following the 2020 election.</p><p>Read for Monday, as we will have a brief discussion of how immunities work in criminal as opposed to civil cases. And we may come back to this when we reach <u>Qualified Immunity</u>. Note also there is an issue of appellate jurisdiction familiar to those of you who took Fed Courts.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-25179497551774718392024-02-06T10:34:00.003-05:002024-02-06T10:34:47.418-05:00For Monday<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-27.m4a">Tuesday audio</a>. <i><b>Bivens</b></i> Reax Papers due next Tuesday.</p><p>We continue with <b>Immunity</b>, starting with <u>Legislative Immunity</u>.</p><p><span> </span>• What does it mean to say immunity is "absolute?"</p><p><span> </span>• For each immunity, note the key questions--who is immune, from what are they immune, and what functions are immune? <br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-57737900471138731162024-02-05T11:41:00.002-05:002024-02-05T11:41:31.370-05:00Other models of constitutional liability<p><a href="https://courtslaw.jotwell.com/ordinary-law-constitutional-torts-and-governmental-accountability/?_gl=1*rien8k*_ga*MTE3OTk2MTE4OC4xNzA1NTQ1NDg3*_ga_BXXRV43J3Z*MTcwNzE1MDg1OS4yLjEuMTcwNzE1MDg1OS4wLjAuMA..">This essay</a> reviews and discusses an article comparing Canada's approach to post-enforcement constitutional damages with the mess in the U.S., especially as to <i>Bivens</i>. The author of the essay is a leading Fed Courts/Civil Rights scholar and one of the key critics of <i>Bivens</i>.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-77040382157793878592024-02-05T10:38:00.003-05:002024-02-05T11:08:17.743-05:00For Tuesday<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/sw-53rd-ave-3.m4a">Monday audio</a>. <u>RPI</u> Papers due tomorrow. Outside if the rain holds off.</p><p>We will continue with and should finish <i><b>Bivens</b></i>, so be ready to work through the three Puzzles.</p><p><span> </span>• What would congressional action look like?</p><p><span> </span>• What is the "double-counting" objection to the Court's two-step approach?</p><p><span> </span>• What is the argument that <i>Bivens</i> is dead rhetorically if not legally? And what is the argument for killing it altogether (Amir's question, off the Gorsuch dissent in <i>Egbert</i>)?</p><p><span> </span>• Go back to the <i>Doe v. Google</i> puzzle in Chapter 2 (p. 50). That claim was based on action by federal officials. How does the case get resolved if plaintiffs seek damages as opposed to an injunction?<br /></p><p>I think we are only going to get through <u>Overview</u> for <b>Immunity</b>, so don't move on to <u>Legislative Immunity</u>.</p><p><span> </span>• What are the purposes and policies behind immunity of all kinds?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• What are the purposes of § 1983/<i>Bivens</i> litigation, especially for damages?</p><p><span> </span>• What makes immunity "absolute," as opposed to qualified?<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-36394982446514949732024-01-30T11:39:00.001-05:002024-01-30T11:39:07.063-05:00Under Color Papers<p><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/bid1235.pdf">Here</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/bid1255.pdf">here</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/bid1291.pdf">here</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/bid1877.pdf">here</a>, and <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/bid1915.pdf">here</a>.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264799306802807051.post-71106020426344133902024-01-30T11:25:00.003-05:002024-01-30T11:25:55.880-05:00The Controversy of State-Created Danger<p><a href="file:///Users/howardwasserman/Desktop/Martine__v._High__No._22-16335.pdf">Recent case from the Ninth Circuit</a>. The majority held that a police officer violates SDP on a state-created danger theory by disclosing the confidential police report and other information to the abuser. A concurrence in the judgment rejects SCD as a judge-made "Frankenstein's monster" without support in the Fourteenth Amendment, history, or precedent. It is not impossible that the Court reconsiders this doctrine in the not-so-distant future.</p><p>The plaintiff lost the case on qualified immunity (which is why the concurrence was not a dissent); we will get to that in a few weeks. Keep this case in your mind and in your notes when we reach that topic; the majority and concurrence analysis illustrate important issues in the doctrine.</p><p>Finally, note the particular facts--the abuser communicating with the defendant officer was a fellow officer. This comes up in a fair number of (usually unsuccessful) SCD claims, often around domestic violence--an officer causes harm not under color and the plaintiff argues that the kid gloves with which colleagues treat that officer increase the danger to the victim.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.com