Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, left, speaks as Justice Sonia Sotomayor listens during a panel discussion at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association, Friday, Feb. 23, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
Justice Sonia Sotomayor opened the week at the U.S. Supreme Court by expressing concern that her conservative colleagues have empowered law enforcement to use “unnecessary force” against peaceful protesters who remain on government property after hours.
In one of her multiple dissents on Monday, Sotomayor addressed the case of Shela Linton, who participated in a 2015 sit-in at Vermont’s state capitol advocating for universal healthcare. Linton was arrested for linking arms with other activists and trespassing in the legislative chamber at night.
Supported by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor criticized the court’s decision to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling. She argued that this move was “clearly inconsistent” with the Fourth Amendment. By granting qualified immunity to Vermont State Police Sgt. Jacob Zorn for his role in arresting Linton, the Supreme Court signaled to law enforcement — both state and federal — that they could have “complete protection” even if they cause lasting harm to peaceful protesters.
Sotomayor recounted that Zorn’s use of a “rear wristlock” for “pain compliance” caused Linton “permanent damage,” despite her status as a “nonviolent protester peacefully demonstrating at a sit-in at the Vermont capitol.” The 2nd Court of Appeals had initially ruled that Zorn was not entitled to qualified immunity from Linton’s lawsuit, but the Supreme Court’s conservative majority disagreed.
“Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a precedent where an officer in similar circumstances was held to have violated the Constitution, Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity. We grant his petition for writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Second Circuit,” the per curiam decision stated.
Qualified immunity is a legal principle that protects government officials from civil lawsuits for actions taken in their official roles, unless those actions breach “clearly established” constitutional rights based on prior case law. Sotomayor emphasized that the existing 2nd Circuit precedent should have alerted Zorn that employing a rear wristlock against a nonviolent protester could constitute excessive force and violate constitutional rights.
Sotomayor observed that the Supreme Court’s reversal of the 2nd Circuit, where she sat as a judge for a decade, immunized alleged facts like Zorn whispering to Linton that “she should have called her legislator” as the sergeant “applied pressure to Linton’s wrist and lifted her upward,” leaving her with “permanent damage to her left wrist and shoulder,” PTSD, depression, and anxiety.
“The Second Circuit correctly held that summary judgment must be denied because a jury could find that Zorn violated Linton’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights,” the liberal justice dissented, warning the majority’s quickness to reverse a qualified immunity grant could amount to a trend.
“The majority today gives officers license to inflict gratuitous pain on a nonviolent protestor even where there is no threat to officer safety or any other reason to do so. That is plainly inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s fundamental guarantee that officers may only use ‘the amount of force that is necessary’ under the circumstances,” the justice concluded.
Linton, the co-founder of the Root Social Justice Center in Vermont, had alleged that Zorn “targeted and intentionally assaulted” her “because I am black.”
