Editorial illustration
The Supreme Court just delivered a reality check to the activists who’ve been trying to dismantle qualified immunity for law enforcement officers. In a per curiam opinion issued Monday, the Court reversed the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and ruled that Vermont State Police Sergeant Jacob Zorn is entitled to qualified immunity after using a wristlock to remove a protester from a 2015 sit-in at the state capitol. The decision wasn’t close—the Court found that existing precedent didn’t clearly establish that Zorn’s specific conduct violated the Constitution, which is exactly what qualified immunity is designed to protect. Officers can’t be held personally liable for civil damages unless prior case law put the unlawfulness of their actions “beyond debate.” In other words, if the law isn’t crystal clear that something is unconstitutional, cops shouldn’t have to fear financial ruin for making split-second decisions in tense situations.
The facts of this case matter because they show how absurd the lower court’s ruling was. Protester Shela Linton participated in a healthcare sit-in at the Vermont capitol on Governor Peter Shumlin’s inauguration day in 2015. After the building closed, police moved to arrest demonstrators who refused to leave. Linton remained seated and linked arms with others. Sergeant Zorn warned her he would have to use force, then took her arm, placed it behind her back, applied pressure to her wrist, and lifted her to his feet. That’s it. That’s the “excessive force” that the 2nd Circuit originally said justified stripping an officer of qualified immunity. A routine wristlock used to move a resistant protester after verbal warning—tactics taught in every police academy in America—was somehow framed as a constitutional violation worthy of civil liability.
The Supreme Court saw through this nonsense, noting that the 2nd Circuit relied too heavily on an earlier decision that didn’t clearly establish “using a routine wristlock to move a resistant protester after warning her, without more, violates the Constitution.” Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Kagan and Jackson, arguing that the Court improperly used summary reversal and that a jury could find excessive force was used against a “nonviolent protester engaged in passive resistance.” But here’s the problem with that framing: passive resistance is still resistance, and police have a duty to enforce the law even when protesters decide they’re above it. The idea that officers should have to wrestle with linked-arm demonstrators rather than using minimal, controlled force to effect an arrest is a recipe for chaos in public spaces. What happens when protesters learn that linking arms and going limp creates a legal forcefield around them?
This case is bigger than one Vermont protest from a decade ago. It’s about whether police can do their jobs without worrying that every arrest will result in personal bankruptcy if some appellate court decides, years later, that their conduct wasn’t “clearly established” as constitutional. The activist left has been waging a coordinated campaign to abolish qualified immunity, framing it as a license for police brutality. But what they don’t tell you is that qualified immunity doesn’t protect officers who violate clearly established law—it protects officers who act reasonably in situations where the law is ambiguous. Sergeant Zorn used a wristlock, not a baton. He warned the protester first. He used the minimum force necessary to effect a lawful arrest. If that’s not protected conduct, then no conduct is.
The Supreme Court’s message here is clear: lower courts can’t stretch precedent to create new constitutional violations out of standard police procedures, then use those stretched rulings to strip officers of immunity. The qualified immunity doctrine exists for a reason—to ensure that police can enforce the law without fear of endless litigation over good-faith decisions. Monday’s ruling reinforces that protection and pushes back against the activist judiciary’s attempts to undermine law enforcement through creative legal theories. For officers on the street dealing with real protests, real resistance, and real threats, this decision provides some much-needed clarity. Do your job, use reasonable force, follow your training, and the law will have your back. That’s how it should be in a society that values both constitutional rights and public order.
Do you think qualified immunity is essential for law enforcement, or should officers face more personal accountability? Sound off in the comments.
Providence watches over the bold.
via Fox News
About The Author
