This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Donald Saucier)
According to Petitioner (Paul D. Clement), petitioner argues that disagreement with the Ninth Circuit about excessive force underscores the need for qualified immunity for officers.
According to Petitioner (Paul D. Clement), petitioner contends that Graham v. Connor did not answer every case involving excessive force.
According to Petitioner (Paul D. Clement), petitioner asserts that Graham v. Connor did not provide officers with crystal‑clear notice of the legal boundaries in excessive‑force contexts.
Respondent (Elliot M. Katz and in Defense of Animals)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice (unspecified), justice asked whether police officers are entitled to know precisely what they must do in every case under qualified immunity and Fourth Amendment principles.
According to Justice (unspecified), justice asked whether only reasonable mistakes of fact are at issue.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 66870c6a8f83006538ec-r1-53c7b4278f32c738.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.