Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Supreme Court should accept broad agreement among civil rights plaintiff, police, and the federal government in malicious prosecution case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio, a case in which the Court is considering whether police officers who file baseless criminal charges against a person are exempt from liability simply because the officers also filed other charges against that person that were supported by probable cause, Constitutional Accountability Center Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle issued the following reaction:

Chief Justice Roberts has long endorsed the principle that “if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” That straightforward principle should guide the Court in resolving this case.

In this case, all sides now agree that police officers can be held liable for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment if they make baseless accusations that cause a person’s arrest. The Supreme Court agreed to review this case because one of the courts of appeals wrongly ruled to the contrary. All that’s necessary to decide this case, therefore, is to reject that erroneous ruling, which even the police officer defendants are no longer attempting to justify.

Additional questions about exactly how a falsely accused person can prove their claim should be left to future cases. For now, the Supreme Court should simply hold, as we showed in our amicus brief, that under the Fourth Amendment and federal civil rights law, police officers are not off the hook for making groundless accusations simply because they managed to combine those false charges with one legitimately brought charge. Such a decision would be a small but important step forward for police accountability.

##

Resources:

Case page in Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/chiaverini-v-city-of-napoleon-ohio/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

##

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: Ignoring constitutional history and original meaning, conservative majority allows city governments to punish people for sleeping in public even if they have nowhere else to go

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 11, 2024

The People Who Dismantled Affirmative Action Have a New Strategy to Crush Racial Justice

Slate
Last summer, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck...
By: David H. Gans