Law Commons^™

What Did The Supreme Court Hold In Heffernan V. City Of Paterson?, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

As a favor to his mother, Jeffrey Heffernan picked up a political yard sign. His supervisors demoted him, in the mistaken belief that he had engaged in protected speech. In Heffernan v. City of Patterson, 136 S.Ct. 1412 (2016), the Supreme Court held that a public employee can sue a local government under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when a supervisor acts for constitutionally impermissible motives, even though he has not in fact exercised First Amendment rights. But the grounds for that holding are unclear. The Court may have ruled that the city, through its police chief, violated Heffernan’s First Amendment …

Brief For The National Association Of Social Workers And The Ohio Chapter Of The National Association Of Social Workers As Amici Curie In Support Of Petitioners, No. 13-933, United States Supreme Court (Mar. 6, 2014), Doron M. Kalir, Carolyn I. Polowy

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

NASW's first argument is simple. To protect children from abuse - a major congressional and state legislative goal - this Court should apply qualified immunity to protect social workers from personal liability where a reasonable decision has been made to remove a child without a warrant.

NASW's second argument is equally cogent. DeShaney was decided 25 years ago. Since then, this Court's "continued silence" on the issue, Kovacic, 724 F.3d at 708 (Sutton, J., dissenting), has failed "to provide guidance to those charged with the difficult task of protecting child welfare within the confines of the Fourth Amendment." Camreta v. …

Alternative State Remedies In Constitutional Torts, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

In recent years, a subtle shift in constitutional tort doctrine has quietly begun to take root. In Bivens actions, the Supreme Court has recently implied that constitutional tort plaintiffs must seek relief under state law when it is available, rather than invoke their federal constitutional rights. This marks a dramatic change from past practices. For much of the twentieth century, a central premise in the constitutional tort field has been that the federal remedy is "supplementary" to the state remedy; constitutional tort plaintiffs have therefore been permitted to seek a remedy under federal law without regard to the availability of …

The "Order-Of-Battle" In Constitutional Litigation, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

This article examines and defends a procedural rule that figures prominently in constitutional tort litigation, has drawn sharp criticism from the federal judiciary, and seems to have lost the support of at least four sitting Supreme Court Justices. In order to recover damages, plaintiffs must not only prove a constitutional violation but also fend off assertions of official immunity. In ruling on motions to dismiss the complaint and motions for summary judgment, a preliminary question is the sequence in which the two issues should be addressed-a problem the Justices call the "order-of-battle." Morse v. Frederick, the "Bong Hits Jesus" case, …

Judicial Immunity And Sovereignty, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.