Zorn v. Linton · ¶41

For the foregoing reasons, the Second Circuit did not err in holding that Zorn is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. At the very least, the decision below was not so wrong as to warrant the “extraordinary remedy of a summary reversal.” Garvey, 532 U. S., at 512–513 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Relying on disputed facts, the Court today simply disagrees with how the Second Circuit applied a correctly stated legal standard (the requirement that law be established to “ `a high degree of specifcity' ” in the qualified immunity analysis) to this particular set of facts. 135 F. 4th, at 32 (quoting Wesby, 583 U. S., at 63). That is a routine, and nowhere near extraordinary, dispute that did not require the Court's intervention.

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