Yoel Weisshaus v. Steve Coy Teichelman, et al.

1 QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

1. In Tolan, involving qualified immunity, the Court held, “Summary judgment is appropriate only if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650,656-7 (2014). The Court emphasized “Our qualified-immunity cases illustrate the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when, as here, a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the standard.” Id at 657. The Fifth Circuit continues to conflict with a different standard, “Normally, summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law... However, a qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the official's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” Bailey v. lies, 87 F.4th 275, 282 (5th Cir. 2023), also Orr v. Copeland, 844 F.3d 484, 490 (5th Cir. 2016). First Question: Whether an official may move for summary judgment on qualified immunity without a showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact?

2. The Ninth, Seventh, and Second Circuits hold that broad profiles that can fit any number of individuals is not reasonable suspicion of a crime. The Fifth Circuit conflicts to considers broad profiles such as an out of state male driving with an “African American” female who “appeared to be considerably younger” and traveling together on a public highway (ie. 1-40, as a “known drug