BRATTLEBORO-I had forgotten about the case of Zorn v. Linton until I heard the small blurb on Vermont Public reporting that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had ruled against Shela Linton, director of the Root Social Justice Center of Brattleboro.
The ruling denied her access to litigation to sue for damages from Vermont State Police Sergeant Jacob Zorn for injuring her wrist and inflicting psychological harm while arresting her for peacefully protesting for universal health care for in the Vermont State House at Gov. Peter Shumlin’s inauguration in 2015, a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.
Over litigation lasting a tortuous 11 years, the Federal District Court of Vermont found that Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity from suit and granted his motion for summary judgement to dismiss Linton’s lawsuit.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision.
Finally, in a per curiam decision issued on March 23, SCOTUS overruled the Second Circuit and reinstated the District Court’s order dismissing the case.
Linton never got a chance to present the merits of her case to a jury on a technicality.
SCOTUS has ruled that the complainant has to show that there is a previous case (i.e., precedent, remember that concept?) with the exact same circumstances where qualified immunity was denied, in order to win a defendant’s motion to dismiss due to qualified immunity and get your case to a jury. No legal hypocrisy here, right?
A.I. defines “per curiam” as “a Latin term meaning ‘by the court,’ used in law to describe an unsigned judicial opinion issued by a court as a whole rather than attributed to a specific judge. These decisions are usually short, unanimous, and deal with non-controversial or straightforward issues.”
However, under the current Roberts-run SCOTUS, per curiam decisions on controversial issues are routinely issued on the court’s “shadow docket” with no or brief explanations. As a result, justices are more likely to make their opinions known with concurring and dissenting opinions than in the past.
In a powerful and detailed dissent in this case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor carefully parsed the evidence and called out the court’s hypocrisy. She recognized Shela Linton’s pain.
She concluded, quoting herself from previous dissents:
“This case unfortunately represents a resurgence and perpetuation of [a] ‘one-sided approach to qualified immunity’ that ‘transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers, gutting the deterrent effect of the Fourth Amendment.’ The majority today gives officers license to inflict gratuitous pain on a nonviolent protestor even where there is no threat to officer safety or any other reason to do so. That is plainly inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s fundamental guarantee that officers may only use ‘the amount of force that is necessary’ under the circumstances. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.”
Shela Linton was seriously and permanently harmed by Zorn. She demonstrated tremendous courage, fortitude, and love by pursing this case to the bitter end.
Shela points out in her statement following the decision that people of color are disproportionately affected by this and like decisions, legal and otherwise. She challenges us to “pay attention to the systems you are a part of and the decisions you make within them. Speak up when you see harm, especially if you hold power.”
Shela Linton, thank you for your courage, your hard work, and your leadership.
Love from your community, country, and world,
Jean Anne Kiewel
Brattleboro
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.