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
The Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals over how to apply the favorable‑termination requirement of the Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution.
Background and question before the Court
The Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals over how to apply the favorable‑termination requirement of the Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution.
What each side argues
Respondent Clark
Clark contends that American courts as of 1871 had not settled on any particular favorable‑termination rule.
Petitioner Amir H. Ali
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Petitioner MR. ALI
Mr. Ali argued that the Laskar test does not require an indication of innocence; the Court should look only at whether the judgment is inconsistent with innocence.
United States (Amicus)
According to United States, at common law, the favorable‑termination element served three purposes: avoiding collateral tax on criminal proceedings through civil suits, avoiding parallel proceedings over guilt and probable cause, and avoiding inconsistent criminal and civil judgments.
Respondent (John D. Moore on behalf of Respondents)
According to Respondents, the Second Circuit correctly interpreted the favorable‑termination requirement, requiring that the underlying criminal charges end in a manner indicative of innocence.
Respondent (General)
Respondent argued that the plaintiff forfeited any challenge to the seizures.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts questioned whether the Laskar test was embraced.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether a dismissal pursuant to an agreement that the defendant testifies against another, in exchange for dismissal, is consistent with innocence.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the plaintiff’s claim was a “Manuel‑type fabrication of evidence.”
Justice Gorsuch asked how the elements of a malicious‑prosecution claim under the Fourth Amendment could be decided if the claim’s existence is uncertain.
What the Court decided
The Court held that a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for Fourth Amendment malicious‑prosecution claims is satisfied when the prosecution ends without a conviction.
Justice Alito dissented, arguing that the plurality did not suggest that the Fourth Amendment could provide a “peg” for a malicious‑prosecution claim and that the claim is incompatible with established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
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.
- 58d0fd88793726979ab0-r1-90d2b7f7a5a2f73a.pdforal argument transcript
- 7e552f9dffcfb1ab8d1d-r1-06ad0b9857e61cdf.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.