Steven R. DeWitt v. Ceressa Haney, et al.

The judicially created doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for constitutional misconduct under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 so long as they do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which every reasonable officer would have known. This doctrine contradicts the text of § 1983, relying on policy concerns instead of the statutory text or the historical common law immunities it allegedly incorporated. The courts of appeals have also splintered, disagreeing about when a right is “clearly established.” Moreover, the typical immunity-first approach to judicial decisions impedes the development of “clearly established” rights altogether. All courts of appeals but the Eleventh Circuit, however, agree that a robust consensus of persuasive authority can render a right clearly established. The First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh circuits have held that there is a constitutional right, under the First Amendment, to record government officials’ activities in public places. The questions presented are:

1. Should the Court abolish or substantially reform qualified immunity?

2. If qualified immunity survives, what constitutes a clearly established right?

3. If qualified immunity survives, is the right to record government officials on publicly accessible property clearly established? PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner is Steven R. DeWitt. Respondents are Ceressa Haney, Trent Sexton, and Melanie Pretti.