October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1977
Should courts decide qualified immunity before or after the jury finds excessive force?
the sides that brought the case seek a mandatory sequence for ruling on qualified immunity in excessive force cases. the opposing sides argue the current approach allows juries to decide the constitutional violation first.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Paul D. Clement argued qualified immunity plays a vital role in excessive force cases.
Clement stated the lower court decision effectively merged the immunity and constitutional tests.
Clement noted this merger occurs in unreasonable force cases just as in search cases.
Mr. Boyd explained the current process depends on the specific circuit court rules.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 27-9 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 27-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 39-58 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 39-58
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the procedural order for resolving qualified immunity claims. the sides that brought the case argue courts must decide immunity before the jury decides the constitutional violation. the opposing sides argue the current method allows juries to find a violation first.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 27-9 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 27-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-47
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 20, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 39-58 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 39-58
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want courts to decide qualified immunity before the jury decides the constitutional violation.
the opposing sides want courts to allow juries to decide the constitutional violation before applying qualified immunity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 27-9 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 27-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-47
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue merging the tests undermines the protective role of qualified immunity in excessive force cases.
the opposing sides argue the current approach creates confusion because some circuits send the issue to the jury first.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 27-9 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 27-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-47
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked how the case is submitted after the argument concludes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 39-58 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 39-58
Why it matters
The outcome defines the procedural path for police officers facing excessive force lawsuits. It determines whether judges or juries resolve the immunity question first. This sequence affects how often officers face trial on constitutional claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 27-9 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 27-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-47
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 39-58 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 39-58
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 27-9 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 27-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 27-9 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 27-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 17-47
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.