Pearson v. Callahan
129 S.Ct. 808 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The two-step sequence for analyzing qualified immunity claims from Saucier v. Katz, which mandated that a court first decide whether a constitutional right was violated before determining if the right was clearly established, is no longer a mandatory requirement. Courts now have discretion to decide which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis to address first.
Facts:
- In 2002, a police informant for the Central Utah Narcotics Task Force, Brian Bartholomew, arranged to buy methamphetamine from Afton Callahan at his residence.
- Bartholomew first entered Callahan's trailer home to confirm that Callahan had methamphetamine available for sale.
- After meeting with task force officers, Bartholomew was equipped with a concealed electronic transmitter and a marked $100 bill.
- Bartholomew returned to Callahan's trailer, was admitted inside, and purchased a gram of methamphetamine from Callahan.
- Immediately after the transaction, Bartholomew gave a pre-arranged signal to the officers who were monitoring the conversation.
- Upon receiving the signal, the officers entered Callahan's trailer home through a porch door without a warrant.
- Inside, the officers witnessed Callahan drop a bag of methamphetamine and proceeded to arrest him and sweep the premises, finding more drugs and syringes.
Procedural Posture:
- After a warrantless search, Afton Callahan was charged with drug offenses in a Utah state court.
- The state trial court denied Callahan's motion to suppress evidence, and he was convicted.
- On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals vacated Callahan's conviction.
- Callahan then filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation.
- The officers moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, which the District Court granted.
- Callahan, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the officers (appellees at this stage) had violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right and were not entitled to qualified immunity.
- The officers then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should the two-step, mandatory procedure for resolving qualified immunity claims established in Saucier v. Katz, which requires courts to first decide if a constitutional right was violated before deciding if that right was 'clearly established,' be retained as an inflexible requirement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No. The mandatory, two-step procedure for resolving qualified immunity claims established in Saucier v. Katz should not be retained as an inflexible requirement. The Saucier protocol required courts to first decide whether the facts make out a constitutional violation and only then decide whether that right was clearly established. This rigid rule is now overruled, and judges of the district and appellate courts are permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis to address first. The Court reasoned that the Saucier mandate was often inefficient, forcing courts and litigants to expend resources on difficult constitutional questions that had no bearing on the case's outcome. It also ran contrary to the principle of constitutional avoidance. By making the sequence discretionary, courts can grant immunity on the ground that a right was not clearly established without first having to resolve a novel or complex constitutional claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly altered the procedure for qualified immunity analysis in civil rights litigation by abandoning the rigid Saucier v. Katz framework. By granting lower courts discretion, Pearson v. Callahan prioritizes judicial efficiency and the principle of constitutional avoidance over the mandatory development of constitutional law. While this change allows courts to more easily dispose of cases against government officials, critics argue it may stifle the clarification and evolution of constitutional rights, as courts can repeatedly grant immunity on the 'not clearly established' prong without ever defining the substantive right at issue.
Unlock the full brief for Pearson v. Callahan