Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna.
In Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, the Supreme Court reviewed whether Officer Rivas-Villegas used excessive force during an arrest, which was initially deemed unlawful by the Ninth Circuit. The Court found that Rivas-Villegas was entitled to qualified immunity as no existing precedent clearly established that his conduct violated statutory or constitutional rights. The facts of the case were materially different from prior cases cited by the Ninth Circuit.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna.
The Court held that Rivas-Villegas is entitled to qualified immunity because no existing precedent clearly established that his conduct was unlawful.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Search and Seizure is relevant to Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna
The case involves the use of force by police officers during an arrest, which implicates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Rivas-Villegas used excessive force.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna
The case discusses whether the officer's actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, which relates to the procedural due process of law enforcement actions.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Rivas-Villegas is entitled to qualified immunity, which 'attaches when an official's conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna that support the summary and concepts above.
Rivas-Villegas is entitled to qualified immunity.
Existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.
Neither Cortesluna nor the Court of Appeals has identified any Supreme Court case that does so.
