Tag: Supreme Court Cases

JACOB P. ZORN v. SHELA M. LINTON

No. 25–297. Decided March 23, 2026

PER CURIAM.

On the Governor’s inauguration day in Vermont, protesters staged a sit-in at the state capitol. When the capitol closed for the day, police officers told them that they would be arrested for trespassing. They refused to leave. As officers removed the protesters one by one, Sergeant Jacob

Zorn asked Shela Linton to stand up and warned her that he would eventually have to use force to remove her. She refused to stand. Zorn took Linton’s arm, put it behind her back, placed pressure on her wrist, and lifted her to her feet.

Linton sued Zorn for using excessive force, claiming that the arrest left her with arm injuries and psychological disorders. The Second Circuit held that Zorn was not entitled to qualified immunity. We reverse.

The Legality of Deadly Force: Three Critical Questions about the ICE Shooting in Minneapolis | Seth W. Stoughton | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

The recent fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Minneapolis has already prompted intense public debate, much of it unfolding before the relevant facts are fully known. That instinct is understandable—police shootings, particularly those involving federal agents engaging in controversial actions, implicate profound questions about authority, accountability, and public safety—but it is also precisely the moment when caution is most warranted. It is far too early for anyone to offer a definitive conclusion; indeed, doing so would be professionally inappropriate. It is possible, however, to identify the questions that will need to be answered to come to a definitive conclusion about whether the officer complied with or violated applicable law.
— Read on verdict-justia-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/verdict.justia.com/amp/2026/01/09/the-legality-of-deadly-force-three-critical-questions-about-the-ice-shooting-in-minneapolis

Reckoning With Bivens | Lawfare

In the wake of the Chicago South Shore raid—which reportedly saw masked U.S. agents rappelling down from a Black Hawk helicopter, bursting into a 130-unit building, kicking down doors, zip-tying and holding American citizens at gunpoint, and the detention of 37 Venezuelan nationals—a law school classmate asked me: Why isn’t every one of these raids—where officers trash property and terrorize residents—a potential Bivens case?

The answer, chilling, at least to me, is: Because my team and I spent decades at the Department of Justice making sure that such lawsuits would be dismissed, typically without trial, and often even without discovery.
— Read on www.lawfaremedia.org/article/reckoning-with-bivens

Court hears arguments on when police may enter a home without a warrant – SCOTUSblog

Court hears arguments on when police may enter a home without a warrant – SCOTUSblog
— Read on www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/court-hears-arguments-on-when-police-may-enter-a-home-without-a-warrant/

No. 24-624 William Trevor Case, Petitioner v. Montana

See all court documents, especially Amicus Briefs HERE

SCOTUS Just Gave ICE a Green Light to Profile Latinos. We Should All Be Outraged. – ACLU of Wisconsin

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly made one of the most dangerous immigration rulings in decades. In a 6-3 decision in Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo, the Court used its “shadow docket” to lift a lower court ban on ICE’s “roving patrols” in Los Angeles.
What does that mean in plain language? This means that ICE agents now have the legal cover to stop, question, and detain people based on appearance, language, accent, workplace, or any other marker that “looks suspicious” to them. In other words, the Court just gave its blessing to racial profiling on a massive scale—and they did it without a full briefing or hearing and without explaining their reasoning.
— Read on www.aclu-wi.org/news/scotus-just-gave-ice-a-green-light-to-profile-latinos-we-should-all-be-outraged/