Reposted by BlueWaveDane
So leave X
There is no point in staying there anymore
Elsewhere, stick to the following principles
BlueWaveDane
@bluewavedane.bsky.social
9.6K followers 13K following 167 posts
Dane, Mom, climate-fighter, book worm, yarn collector, knitter Chem. tech. Microbiology Democrat to the core ! #Justicematters #Resistance 🌊 #Teamjustice 🌊 I do not respond to DM'S
![JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
To overcome qualified immunity, a party must show that
an official violated a federal right that “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the] alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 232 (2009). This requirement ensures that officials are not subject to the burdens of litigation or held liable for conduct without notice that such conduct is unlawful. See Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U. S. 100, 104
(2018) (per curiam); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U. S. 730, 739
(2002). Needless to say, a judicial decision postdating an
official’s alleged misconduct is of no use in determining
what was “clearly established” at the time. The courts
below badly fumbled this basic tenet of our qualifiedimmunity doctrine by treating a later-in-time Circuit precedent as a basis for the existence of “clearly established
law.” I would grant the petitioner’s request for summary
reversal to correct this flagrant error](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreibyelnc2dtsjlcj3xk4pjogox5n3lijermvl3govy7dwgfpzjirp4)
