3 ms·

The reason piece is good, but it glosses over some of the legal issues here. What is not at doubt is that Villarreal did not commit a crime. The texas law is

The reason piece is good, but it glosses over some of the legal issues here. What is not at doubt is that Villarreal did not commit a crime. The texas law is either unconstitutionally vague, or doesn't apply to the kind of conduct that Villareal engaged in (the texas law actually isn't at issue, since Villareal wasn't indicted). The question is whether the texas law is so unconstitutional, that arresting her for breaking it creates a ground to sue the officers. It's a question of the doctrine of qualified immunity, that police officers cannot be sued under the civil rights act unless they act against settled law. There is no settled law that this kind of arrest is unconstitutional, and so the question is whether it is sort of obviously settled law, an extremely high bar. I don't agree with the doctrine of qualified immunity, but it is the law according to the supreme court, the appeals courts are responsible for applying it.

googlryas 4y ago
If someone's suit is thrown out over qualified immunity, can one sue the federal government over qualified immunity itself as violating their civil rights? I've tried to comprehend the logic of it, but I gave a very hard time. It's like the judiciary decided there is a set of ways ones civil rights can be violated, and they all were discovered before a specific date.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  Not directly, but you could appeal on those grounds but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past on Qualified Immunity so you're not likely to get your petition granted. (You can sue the United States over qualified immunity generally, but you'll be found not to have standing, and your suit will be dismissed put of hand)
- semiquaver 4y ago
  One important thing to understand is that the US government enjoys absolute immunity from suit under the doctrine of “sovereign immunity”. It may only be sued with its express consent, normally provided by statute. Congress periodically passes laws such as the Federal Tort Claims Act creating categories of offenses that it consents to being sued under. If you sue the government for something that Congress has not already authorized, standing doesn’t even enter into it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity Typically (as in the case at issue in this article) government officials are sued in their individual capacity, since suing them in their capacity would immediately fail. In this context they’re just people and do not have sovereign immunity. Instead the Supreme Court created (they might say “recognized” but we should call things what they are) something called “qualified immunity” in 1982 for such cases, subject to certain limits. Because conservative jurists tend to be pro-law-enforcement the list of things that can defeat a qualified immunity defense has grown smaller and smaller over the years. At some point the Supreme Court ruled that to overcome a qualified immunity defense the violation had to obviously and exactly fall into one of the small number of categories that they had developed from prior cases. That’s where we are now. (IANAL)
AdrianB1 4y ago
Just a clarification: it is not "the law according to the supreme court" because there is no law about it; it is something SCOTUS invented about 40 years ago out of thin air.
- rhinoceraptor 4y ago
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  A clarification: "the law according to the supreme court" is whatever they say it is. If others disagree, (a) they can convince legislators to impeach SC justices, (b) they can try to pass an amendment overturning th SC decision, or (c) elect a president who will nominate justices likely to overturn that decision.
  - gameman144 4y ago
    All these, plus in cases where the Supreme Court decisions pertain to a specific law (as opposed to constitutional interpretation or the like), there's also the much lower buy-in option of repealing a given law and passing a more clearly worded and less open-for-interpretation version of said law.
- gameman144 4y ago
  I mean, if the Supreme Court says it's the law, then by definition it's "the law according to the Supreme Court". Likewise, if my friend Doug says that speeding is fine because he's a sovereign citizen, then that's by definition "the law according to Doug". The difference here is that we determined a few centuries ago that the Supreme Court's interpretation is the one that counts, so we abide by that interpretation when trying to figure out what laws mean.
tln 4y ago
Very interesting... do you know any blogs where these legal issues are discussed? I found the case itself https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/20-40359/20-40359-2022-08-12.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/20...
jtbayly 4y ago
If that's the actual legal issue, then it's not a good article at all.

googlryas 4y ago

If someone's suit is thrown out over qualified immunity, can one sue the federal government over qualified immunity itself as violating their civil rights? I've tried to comprehend the logic of it, but I gave a very hard time. It's like the judiciary decided there is a set of ways ones civil rights can be violated, and they all were discovered before a specific date.

codefreeordie 4y ago
Not directly, but you could appeal on those grounds but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past on Qualified Immunity so you're not likely to get your petition granted. (You can sue the United States over qualified immunity generally, but you'll be found not to have standing, and your suit will be dismissed put of hand)
semiquaver 4y ago
One important thing to understand is that the US government enjoys absolute immunity from suit under the doctrine of “sovereign immunity”. It may only be sued with its express consent, normally provided by statute. Congress periodically passes laws such as the Federal Tort Claims Act creating categories of offenses that it consents to being sued under. If you sue the government for something that Congress has not already authorized, standing doesn’t even enter into it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity Typically (as in the case at issue in this article) government officials are sued in their individual capacity, since suing them in their capacity would immediately fail. In this context they’re just people and do not have sovereign immunity. Instead the Supreme Court created (they might say “recognized” but we should call things what they are) something called “qualified immunity” in 1982 for such cases, subject to certain limits. Because conservative jurists tend to be pro-law-enforcement the list of things that can defeat a qualified immunity defense has grown smaller and smaller over the years. At some point the Supreme Court ruled that to overcome a qualified immunity defense the violation had to obviously and exactly fall into one of the small number of categories that they had developed from prior cases. That’s where we are now. (IANAL)

AdrianB1 4y ago

Just a clarification: it is not "the law according to the supreme court" because there is no law about it; it is something SCOTUS invented about 40 years ago out of thin air.

rhinoceraptor 4y ago
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
A clarification: "the law according to the supreme court" is whatever they say it is. If others disagree, (a) they can convince legislators to impeach SC justices, (b) they can try to pass an amendment overturning th SC decision, or (c) elect a president who will nominate justices likely to overturn that decision.
- gameman144 4y ago
  All these, plus in cases where the Supreme Court decisions pertain to a specific law (as opposed to constitutional interpretation or the like), there's also the much lower buy-in option of repealing a given law and passing a more clearly worded and less open-for-interpretation version of said law.
gameman144 4y ago
I mean, if the Supreme Court says it's the law, then by definition it's "the law according to the Supreme Court". Likewise, if my friend Doug says that speeding is fine because he's a sovereign citizen, then that's by definition "the law according to Doug". The difference here is that we determined a few centuries ago that the Supreme Court's interpretation is the one that counts, so we abide by that interpretation when trying to figure out what laws mean.

tln 4y ago

Very interesting... do you know any blogs where these legal issues are discussed? I found the case itself https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/20-40359/20-40359-2022-08-12.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/20...

jtbayly 4y ago

If that's the actual legal issue, then it's not a good article at all.