Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

reACTIONary

(7,155 posts)
5. This appears to be a bit of a muddle....
Mon Mar 23, 2026, 06:05 PM
5 hrs ago

.... according to Sotomayor's dessert, the actual law was ruled unconditional...

This rule creates a perverse scheme in which officials can arrest someone for protected activity, decline to appeal a trial court's decision declaring the statute unconstitutional (as the county did here), and use qualified immunity to avoid liability by citing back to that statute."

What was dismissed was a lawsuits against those who used the law to arrest her, based on "qualified immunity." In other words, the officials should not be sued for enforcing a unconstitutional law that had not yet been declared unconstitutional.

Now, maybe they should have known the law would be or should be declared unconstitutional, and maybe they did. But I'm not sure they should be sued because they didn't behave as if it was.

In any case it appears as if the law itself is now null and void.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court Declines To...»Reply #5