October Term 2001 · Docket 01-309
Does handcuffing a prisoner to a bar violate the Eighth Amendment?
the sides that brought the case seek damages for excessive force. the opposing sides claim qualified immunity shields them from liability.
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
Mr. Jones argued the law clearly established the conduct as unlawful.
Mr. Forrester cited eight Alabama judges who found no violation.
Mr. Schaerr argued common sense principles control the outcome.
Mr. Schlick stated immunity applies unless the violation was clear.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of qualified immunity. It asks whether prior rulings clearly established the law. The outcome defines fair warning for officials.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-9
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 17, 2002.
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 11-13 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 11-13
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want a damages award for the alleged excessive force.
the opposing sides want dismissal of the claim based on qualified immunity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-9
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the law clearly established the conduct as unlawful.
the opposing sides argue the law was not clear to a reasonable officer.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-9
What the justices asked
Did prior rulings provide fair warning that the conduct was unlawful?
Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit handcuffing a prisoner to a bar?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 11-13
Why it matters
This dispute defines the limits of official immunity. It shapes how courts evaluate excessive force claims. It impacts the daily conduct of law enforcement officers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-9
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 11-13 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 11-13
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 17, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 44, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 44, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 3-9
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.