Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Mathew Grashorn v. Wendy Love, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 23-1397 · judgment April 22, 2025
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Under this Court’s well-established qualified-immunity framework, courts conduct a two-part analysis to resolve an officer’s qualified-immunity defense on summary judgment. First, a court takes the historical facts “in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury” and then determines, as a matter of law, whether these facts “show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 377 (2007). Thus, in Fourth Amendment cases like this one, a court determines at the first step whether the historical facts, viewed in plaintiff’s favor, show the officer’s actions were objectively unreasonable as a matter of law. Id. at 381 n.8. Second, a court determines whether the officer’s conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1, 5 (2021) (per curiam). This “inquiry ‘must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.’” Id. at 5–6. “[S]pecificity is especially important in the Fourth Amendment context,” id. at 6, particularly where “split-second judgments” are concerned, Barnes v. Felix, 145 S. Ct. 1353, 1363 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). The questions presented are: 1. Whether, when conducting an objective reasonableness analysis to determine if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, a reviewing court lacks jurisdiction over a district court’s determinations
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Vincent Gregory Levy
Holwell Shuster & Goldberg, LLP
For respondent
Sarah Jay Schielke
The Life & Liberty Law Office
Proceedings
- Jan 12 2026Petition DENIED.
- Dec 23 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
- Dec 19 2025Reply of petitioner Mathew Grashorn filed. (Distributed)
- Dec 05 2025Brief of respondents Wendy Love, et al. in opposition filed.
- Nov 03 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is further extended to and including December 5, 2025.
- Oct 31 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 10, 2025 to December 10, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Oct 09 2025Brief amicus curiae of Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund filed.
- Oct 09 2025Brief amici curiae of Peace Officers Research Association of California, et al. filed.
- Sep 25 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 10, 2025.
- Sep 23 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 9, 2025 to November 10, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Sep 09 2025Response Requested. (Due October 9, 2025)
- Sep 03 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
- Aug 27 2025Waiver of right of respondent Wendy Love, et al. to respond filed.
- Aug 20 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 22, 2025)
- Jul 11 2025Application (25A41) granted by Justice Gorsuch extending the time to file until August 20, 2025.
- Jul 08 2025Application (25A41) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 21, 2025 to September 19, 2025, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.