Messerschmidt v. Millender: What’s Next, After the Supreme Court Rules?

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Howard Wasserman says:

    Your point about “speed” explains why the focus is always on qualified immunity and not issues such as causation. Causation probably cannot be resolved until trial, while the Court’s focus is how to get officers out of the case as early and as quickly as possible.

  2. Kyle says:

    @Howard: You raise a good point; duty issues, generally, tend to get developed early on in the development of a cause of action, and the allowance of interlocutory appeals on qualified immunity issues permit duty, and/or what might be thought of as breach, to be developed relatively robustly in the section 1983 context. My point is mostly that even among issues traditionally reserved for the jury, causation tends to come last, or close to last, in its development through precedent.