Patrick Harrington, Individually and as Prosecutor of Tippecanoe County, Indiana v. Martin

Randall Martin resigned as a deputy sheriff under an agreement with the sheriff, then prosecutors disclosed allegations about his conduct to a prospective law-enforcement employer. The petition asks whether the Seventh Circuit departed from Supreme Court guidance on qualified immunity (protection for officials unless they violate clearly established law) and party presentation (courts generally deciding issues the parties raise).

The Court has not scheduled oral argument or issued a decision. The petition argues that the Seventh Circuit conflicted with the Court's instructions to define rights specifically and to follow the parties' presented arguments.

The case could affect prosecutors who disclose information about law-enforcement officers and officers seeking new public-safety jobs. For example, it could shape when an officer can sue after a disclosure affects a prospective employer's hiring decision.

The Court may decide whether to grant certiorari (the Court's decision to hear the case). No argument date or decision window is available; watch for an order or scheduling move.

The case concerns whether prosecutors can face a lawsuit over disclosures that affected a former deputy sheriff's prospective employment. It also concerns the scope of qualified immunity.

Prosecutors, law-enforcement officers, and public agencies hiring officers could be affected. The case may influence lawsuits over disclosures about an officer's conduct or credibility.

The Supreme Court must first decide whether to hear the petition. No oral argument is scheduled, and no decision timing has been announced.