Sotomayor dissents over police force on Vermont protester

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in a case involving a Vermont state police sergeant's use of force against a nonviolent protester, warning that the majority granted officers a 'license to inflict gratuitous pain.' The decision reversed a lower court's ruling denying qualified immunity to Sgt. Jacob Zorn. Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued the action violated the Fourth Amendment.

On March 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision reversing the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Shela Linton, a protester arrested during a 2015 sit-in at Vermont's capitol advocating for universal healthcare. Linton, co-founder of the Root Social Justice Center, had locked arms with fellow activists inside the legislative chamber after hours, leading to her arrest for trespassing by Vermont State Police Sgt. Jacob Zorn. Zorn applied a 'rear wristlock' for 'pain compliance,' which Linton alleged caused permanent damage to her left wrist and shoulder, as well as PTSD, depression, and anxiety. She further claimed Zorn targeted her 'because I am black' and whispered that 'she should have called her legislator' while applying pressure and lifting her upward. The 2nd Circuit had denied Zorn qualified immunity, finding that his actions could violate Linton's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights against excessive force. However, the Supreme Court majority ruled that no prior 2nd Circuit precedent clearly established such a violation in similar circumstances, granting Zorn immunity. In her dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor criticized the decision as 'plainly inconsistent' with the Fourth Amendment, which limits force to what is 'necessary' under the circumstances. She wrote, 'The majority today gives officers license to inflict gratuitous pain on a nonviolent protestor even where there is no threat to officer safety or any other reason to do so.' Sotomayor, a former 2nd Circuit judge, argued that existing precedent should have put Zorn on notice against using such force on a peaceful demonstrator.

Related Articles

Dramatic illustration of Justice Sotomayor dissenting outside the Supreme Court, overlaid with the wrongful arrest of journalist Priscilla Villarreal, underscoring First Amendment concerns.
Image generated by AI

Sotomayor dissents as Supreme Court declines to hear Texas journalist’s wrongful-arrest appeal

Reported by AI Image generated by AI Fact checked

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by Texas citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal, leaving in place a divided ruling that she cannot sue local officials over her 2017 arrest for obtaining nonpublic information from police. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a lone dissent, calling the arrest an obvious First Amendment violation.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharp dissent on Monday as the court declined to hear the case of James Skinner, serving life without parole for the 1998 killing of teenager Eric Walber in Louisiana. Joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor accused the court of failing to enforce its own precedents on withheld evidence. She highlighted the unequal treatment compared to Skinner's co-defendant Michael Wearry, who was released after similar Brady violations.

Reported by AI Fact checked

U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell has ruled that immigration officers in the District of Columbia must have probable cause before carrying out warrantless arrests, a decision that reins in aggressive enforcement tactics and pointedly questions a recent Supreme Court order that expanded immigration ‘roving patrols’ elsewhere.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote a sharply worded dissent after the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear a dispute involving Olympus Spa, a women-only Korean spa in Washington state, and the state’s ban on gender-identity discrimination in public accommodations. His language, including a crude opening phrase, drew a rare written rebuke from a large group of fellow Ninth Circuit judges.

Reported by AI

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has appeared to reverse his earlier stance allowing apparent ethnicity as a factor in immigration stops. In a recent footnote, he stated that race and ethnicity cannot be considerations in such actions. This comes amid criticism over so-called 'Kavanaugh stops' leading to racial profiling.

Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz has warned of criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration for repeated violations of court orders in immigration cases. The judge expressed frustration over the government's failure to comply with directives related to ICE detentions following Operation Metro Surge. This comes amid overwhelming caseloads for federal attorneys handling the fallout.

Reported by AI

In a 2025 Supreme Court shadow-docket ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion harshly criticized a veteran district judge, prompting backlash for its tone and implications for judicial hierarchy. The decision paused a lower court's block on the Trump administration's cancellation of NIH research grants. Legal analysts highlighted the opinion as emblematic of broader issues with the court's emergency procedures.

 

 

 

This website uses cookies

We use cookies for analytics to improve our site. Read our privacy policy for more information.
Decline