Zorn v. Linton

This case asked whether a Vermont state police sergeant could be sued for excessive force after using a wristlock to remove a protester who refused to leave the state capitol during a sit-in. The Supreme Court said Sergeant Jacob Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity (protection from damages suits when the law was not clearly established).

In a per curiam opinion, the Court said Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity. The prompt does not provide a vote count or details about any separate opinions.

“Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity.”

The decision makes it harder to win some excessive-force claims when earlier cases do not closely match the facts. That affects protesters, police officers, and judges deciding whether an officer can be sued for force used during removals or arrests.

The Supreme Court has finished this docket action. Lower courts and the parties must now apply the Court's decision in any remaining proceedings.

The case asked whether Sergeant Zorn could face an excessive-force suit for using a wristlock on a protester during a capitol sit-in removal. The Supreme Court said he was protected by qualified immunity.

People bringing police excessive-force claims may face a tougher path when no earlier case closely matches their facts. Officers may be more likely to avoid damages suits in similar situations.

The Supreme Court's work on this case is done. Any remaining lower-court steps must follow the Court's decision that Zorn is entitled to qualified immunity.