stating that “only the case law of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit or the law of the highest court of the state where the events took place — in this case, Florida — can 'clearly establish' constitutional rights” (quoting Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1032 n. 10 (11th Cir.2001))
How later courts described this case
- stating that “only the case law of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit or the law of the highest court of the state where the events took place — in this case, Florida — can 'clearly establish' constitutional rights” (quoting Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1032 n. 10 (11th Cir.2001))
- stating that identification of injured individuals does not apply to First Amendment claims, and the same reasoning can be applied to support that plaintiffs need not allege which subordinates caused the alleged injury in supervisory liability claims under § 1983
- finding that, even if a plaintiff adequately alleges a First Amendment violation, a defendant “will still be entitled to qualified immunity unless those rights were clearly established at the time the violations took place” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- reversing the district court’s order dismissing First Amendment claims when an organization alleged that the defendants directed police officers to take actions that prohibited a demonstration from being seen or heard by audience members or the media
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)
559 F.3d 1170, 1180 (11th Cir. 2009), abrogated on other grounds by Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
The opinion
HULL, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I specially concur in the judgment reversing the district court’s dismissal of Amnesty’s Second Amended Complaint.