Olivier v. City of Brandon · ¶11

The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, but eight (of seventeen) judges dissented. Those judges understood Heck to bar only the “retrospective use of [§ 1983] to collaterally attack criminal convictions.” 121 F. 4th 511, 514 (2024) (Oldham, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original). A suit like Olivier's for “prospective injunctive relief,” the dissenters argued, is not precluded because granting a “forward-looking injunction” neither “invalidate[s]” nor “impose[s] tort liability” for a prior conviction. Id., at 514–515; see id., at 513 (Ho, J., dissenting) (similar). The dissenters noted that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had adopted their view, which meant there was now a Circuit split about Heck's proper reach. 121 F. 4th, at 515 (Oldham, J., dissenting) (citing Martin v. Boise, 920 F. 3d 584, 614 (2019)).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.