J. P., By and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Shannon Villanueva v. Alameda County, California, et al.

I. Emotional harm alone triggers 42 U.S.C. §1983 liability. The Ninth Circuit granted qualified immunity on J.P.s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims for not being “clearly-established” because J.P.’s harm was allegedly “indirect” meaning that J.P. sought emotional, not physical, damages. This new standard contradicts well-established law holding that this prong is intended to provide “fair notice” to State employees about Constitutionally-prohibited conduct. Henceforth should courts assess foster children’s clearly-established rights based on damages or conduct? II. The Fourteenth Amendment mandates child-welfare workers care for, supervise, and not place foster children in danger. Foster children enjoy a clearly-established right to not be left in a dangerous foster home. California workers are required to: immediately respond to imminentinjury reports, and, ensure emotional safety, sibling relationships, and a drug-free environment. Five-year old J.P.’s workers ignored reports his toddler sister was hospitalized overnight for amphetamine abuse; they permitted the siblings to stay in the same home. Two weeks later, J.P.’s sister died from methamphetamine toxicity in J.P.’s arms. Did defendants have “fair notice” their conduct was Constitutionally-prohibited? III. Family relationships meeting exacting criteria enjoy First Amendment intimate-association rights. Nationwide statutory schemes protect foster siblings’ relationships. The Ninth Circuit precluded adult noncohabitating siblings from pursuing Fourteenth Amendment loss-ofcompanionship/-society claims in Ward v. San Jose. Here the Ninth Circuit extended Ward to exclude all siblings from First Amendment intimate-association protections, although the two Amendments do not merge. As a matter of first impression, do minor cohabitating foster-care siblings enjoy First Amendment intimate-association rights?