Donald Shooter v. Arizona, et al.

Does this case present an important question not previously decided by the Supreme Court in which an elected member of the Arizona Legislature engaged in exposing corruption by the Executive Branch was ambushed with a sexual harrassment allegation and summarily expelled without due process of law and having no private state constitutional cause of action, based upon a third party report edited illegitimately and deceptively by the proponent of expulsion to remove exculpatory material to the elected representative and containing false statements, instead of having a public Committee hearing involving, inter alia, opening statements, presentation of documents, examination and cross-examination of witnesses and confrontation of accusers?

Does the Ninth Circuit’s qualified immunity decision in this case, which relied upon cases involving police law enforcement, that a constitutional right is not “clearly established” for a damages action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 where there is an absence of a specific case on the facts of this case conflict with this Court’s decision in Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 740-741 (2002), that in determining whether there was “reasonable warning that the conduct then at issue violated constitutional rights,” “general statements of the law are not inherently incapable of giving fair and clear warning” and “a general constitutional rule already