Those interested in reading the actual rulings themselves rather than depend upon media reporting, can find these here:
City of Tahlequah v. Bond
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1668_19m2.pdf
Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1539_09m1.pdf
Thank you.
Always better to read primary sources when available. This is a general rule for history and other fields as well.
Summaries and articles can introduce agendas and bias. At one time, doing this was actually considered poor journalism and/or scholastic practice. In today’s superheated “woke” environment, failing to advocate the “correct” point of view is fatal to one’s career, no matter how distinguished the person.
Read through the summaries in both cases. Thanks again for posting.
Recommend other persons read the case summaries (provided at post #34) before posting comments.
These cases were decided on facts specific to the cases: one involvied the fatal shooting of a hammer yielding suspect; the other involved an officer kneeling on the left side of a violent arrestee for eight whole seconds while disarming him.
The opinions in these cases support qualified immunity; however, the notion that there has to be an exact similar fact pattern to overcome qualified immunity is nonsense.
The standard in the past was the cops knew or should have known their actions were in violation of a person’s constitutional rights.
These two cases are much-ado-about-nothing.
It also bodes well for Derek Chauvin’s appeals.