Joshua Hollamon v. County of Wright, Minnesota, et al.

In Zorn v. Linton, 607 U.S. 568, 146 S. Ct. 926 (2026) (per curiam), this Court left unresolved the constitutional limits on police force against nonviolent civil disobedience. The Second Circuit had held that an officer’s use of significant force against a nonviolent, passively resisting protester violated the Fourth Amendment and that the prohibition was clearly established. This Court reversed without deciding the underlying constitutional question. The Eighth Circuit decided that question here. It held that an officer acted reasonably in shooting petitioner in the head with pepperballs—resulting in brain injury—because petitioner and his fellow protesters by virtue of their civil disobedience “instigated the need for officer engagement by disobeying officers’ commands.” Pet. App. 6a, 10a. It rested its judgment on the constitutional merits, not qualified immunity. That holding conflicts with the settled law of other courts of appeals that have held that civil disobedience alone does not justify significant force. The Tenth Circuit recently reaffirmed the opposite rule, holding that it is clearly established that shooting a protester with pepperballs when the protester is committing no crime more serious than a misdemeanor, threatens no one, and is not attempting to flee clearly violates the Fourth Amendment. Epps v. Christian, 173 F.4th 1236, 1242-44 (10th Cir. 2026). This case can resolve the conflict on the merits and give police and protesters the clear constitutional rule that Zorn left unsettled. The question presented is: Whether the police may use significant force against a person engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience—who is not suspected of a serious crime, is not threatening anyone, and is neither fleeing nor resisting arrest— because he refuses to obey their commands.