They can rule narrowly when they want to. This guy has been to SCOTUS twice over what others may consider to be minor matters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan

They can rule narrowly when they want to. This guy has been to SCOTUS twice over what others may consider to be minor matters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fane_Lozman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fane_Lozman And in the second case (involving retaliatory arrest): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozman_v._City_of_Riviera_Beach_(2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozman_v._City_of_Riviera_Beac... > At oral arguments, justices expressed both sympathy for Lozman and hesitance to issue a ruling that might hinder law enforcement. Their eventual ruling in Lozman's favor was very narrow, holding that the Mt. Healthy test was appropriate "on facts like these",[1] based on the alleged "official municipal policy"[2] of retaliation and the importance of the right to petition. If the guy in the case at hand had spent $875 thousand in suing the Ohio police I wonder if they would have taken up the case. Or perhaps you're right and the court is just loath to pick up any case touching qualified immunity. If anything I'd guess that they just don't have much sympathy for satire against law enforcement (especially when it's not immediately obvious that it's satire).