Lannette Linthicum, et al. v. Robin Wayne Smith

QU E S TIO NS PR E S E NTE D This Court has repeatedly held that cases postdating a government official’s allegedly unlawful acts are of “no use” in analyzing the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 142 S. Ct. 9, 12 (2021) (per curiam); see also, e.g., Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2018) (per curiam); Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 200 n.4 (2004) (per curiam). The decision below created an exception from this rule for caselaw published after the defendant’s acts that discusses pre-existing law. The Fifth Circuit joined the Second, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in embracing this rule despite this Court’s clear precedent to the contrary. This Court has also warned lower courts against “defin[ing] clearly established law at a high level of generality.” City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500, 503 (2019) (per curiam). And it has summarily reversed decisions that fail to heed that warning. E.g., Kisela, 138 S. Ct. at 1154-55. Nevertheless, as the dissenting judge noted, the decision below holds that an authority from an altogether different factual context clearly established the constitutional right at issue. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the Fifth Circuit manifestly departed from this Court’s precedent by holding that authority that postdates the defendant’s alleged acts can clearly establish the law for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity.

2. Whether the Fifth Circuit defined inmates’ rights to care for serious medical needs at an impermissibly high level of generality. (I)