3 ms·

Your point is irrelevant as Novak is suing the city, not any individual officer. This has nothing to do with qualified immunity. Edit: the above is wrong, an

• msbarnett 4y ago
  Completely wrong. The 6th circuit's affirmation of the lower court's summary judgement was entirely based on the officers' entitlement to qualified immunity. Read the opinion yourself: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/18-3373/18-3373-2019-07-29.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/18... . That's the particular dispute that's heading to the Supreme Court. The municipal liability is unrelated to this amicus brief, which is entirely about the QI dispute.
• lotsofpulp 4y ago
  He is suing the individual officers: https://reason.com/2022/09/28/a-parodist-asks-scotus-to-let-him-sue-the-cops-who-arrested-him-for-making-fun-of-them/ https://reason.com/2022/09/28/a-parodist-asks-scotus-to-let-... >After a jury unanimously acquitted Novak of that felony, he sued seven officers for violating his First Amendment rights. >But this year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit concluded that the officers he sued were protected by qualified immunity, which shields police from liability for violating constitutional rights unless their alleged misconduct ran afoul of "clearly established" law.