A Federal Judge Challenges the Supreme Court to Say Black Lives Matter

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/supreme-court-qualified-immunity-reeves-opinion.html

U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves often weaves the nation’s history of discrimination into his analysis. Reeves, a Black man who writes with trenchant candor about racism in America, was appointed to the Southern District of Mississippi by President Barack Obama in 2010. His Tuesday decision in Jamison v. McClendon, however, is much more than a legal history lesson. It is a fiery protest against the injustices of racist law enforcement wrapped in a scholarly critique of the appalling doctrine that lets lawless cops off the hook. He denounced a legal system that favors unconstitutional policing over Black lives. And then he let the officer off the hook.

The doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects police officers from lawsuits over their behavior on the job, has suddenly received massive scrutiny in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd and the ensuing Black Lives Matter protests. Judges have begun to grapple with the courts’ role in expanding the doctrine and its dehumanizing consequences. Some judges are now even listening to the protests in the streets. A federal appeals court cited Floyd’s killing in a June opinion denying qualified immunity, explaining that the doctrine risks letting cops disrespect “the dignity and worth of black lives.” Reeves has now joined the chorus of judges urging the Supreme Court to acknowledge the “worth of black lives” and its complicity in using “legal jargon” to cover up systemic racism in law enforcement.

The facts in Jamison are depressingly familiar. A white Mississippi officer named Nick McClendon pulled over Clarence Jamison, a Black man driving his new Mercedes convertible. McClendon claimed that Jamison’s temporary tag was “folded up.” (Later, Jamison provided evidence that the tag was never folded.) McClendon ran a background check but found no criminal history. He then asked Jamison if he could search the Mercedes, allegedly (and falsely) accusing Jamison of carrying 10 kilograms of cocaine. Jamison initially refused the search. But after McClendon asked five times, Jamison acquiesced. The officer proceeded to dismantle Jamison’s car for nearly two hours, searching every inch and finding no contraband. In the process, he destroyed portions of the car, inflicting thousands of dollars’ worth of damage. McClendon also deployed a drug-sniffing dog, who found nothing.

Jamison then sued McClendon for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. A federal law passed in the wake of the Civil War lets individuals sue state officers who infringe on their constitutional liberties. But the Supreme Court has hobbled this law by imposing an extra-textual requirement: A victim must prove that the officer violated a “clearly established” right “beyond debate,” meaning a court has previously found that a nearly identical offense violated the Constitution. If a victim cannot meet this burden, the official receives “qualified immunity”—a shield against the lawsuit.

*snip*