The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that qualified immunity applied to the police interactions because the protestors did not cite a case that “‘clearly establish[ed]’ that Defendants’ use of force … was objectively unreasonable.” The appeals court explained that qualified immunity is granted to government officials “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Protestor Ira Yedlin was part of a crowd aggressively pushing a fence separating the Free Speech Zone from another security zone distancing the anti-Trump protestors from the rally. The police fired pepper balls that struck and bruised Yedlin. The court found that the police did not use excessive force because the breach would have been “an immediate and substantial threat to the safety of the officers, nearby members of the public, and potentially [Trump’s] motorcade.”
— Read on www.jurist.org/news/2024/12/us-appeals-court-reverses-ruling-that-arizona-police-used-excessive-force-against-anti-trump-protesters/