Supreme Court reverses lower court on qualified immunity for Vermont police sergeant who arrested protester

"The Second Circuit held that Zorn was not entitled to qualified immunity," read the majority ruling - with the three liberal justices dissenting - rejecting excess use of force arguments. "We reverse."

The justices said officers are generally shielded from civil liability unless prior case law put the unlawfulness of their actions "beyond debate." 

"Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a case where an officer taking similar actions in similar circumstances 'was held to have violated' the Constitution, Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity," the ruling concluded. 

"We grant his petition for writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Second Circuit."

Zorn warned her he would have to use force, then took her arm, placed it behind her back, applied pressure to her wrist and lifted her to her feet. Linton later sued, alleging physical and psychological injuries. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued the court had improperly stepped in with the "extraordinary remedy of a summary reversal" and said a jury could find the officer used excessive force against a nonviolent protester engaged in passive resistance.

"A jury could find that Zorn violated Linton's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights," Sotomayor wrote in the signed dissent.

"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," she concluded. 

"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," Sotomayor wrote. "Therefore, I respectfully dissent."