“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Trump Sixth Circuit nominee John Nalbandian cast the deciding vote to reverse the lower court and grant immunity from liability to a prison guard who severely injured a prisoner by slamming him to the ground after threatening to make him “kiss concrete” if he did not comply with directions.. George W Bush nominee Judge Julia Smith Gibbons dissented from the 2-1 September 2025 ruling in McNair v Pratt.
What happened in this case?
Michigan prisoner David McNair became involved in an altercation with guard Collin Pratt, which ended with Pratt “slamming McNair to the ground,” causing serious injury. McNair was taken to the prison medical unit, where he had a lump on his forehead, was bleeding from a gash and had “multiple” other abrasions on his face. He received treatment over the next several days, including over-the-counter painkillers. The prison found that Pratt had violated its “use of force” policy and terminated him, although he was later rehired.
McNair filed a federal lawsuit against Pratt and others, claiming violation of his civil rights due to use of excessive force and violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Pratt argued that he should receive qualified immunity, and the case should be dismissed. The district court declined, and McNair appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
How did Trump judge Nalbandian and the Sixth Circuit majority decide the case and why is it harmful?
Trump judge Nalbandian joined a 2-1 ruling by Reagan nominee Danny Boggs that reversed the decision below and directed that the case be dismissed on grounds of qualified immunity. The majority maintained that McNair had failed to cite a case that was “enough on point” to the “particularized contours” of what happened to him
Judge Gibbons firmly dissented. She explained that under the law, a plaintiff “need not identify a case with the exact same fact pattern” or even “materially similar” facts. Instead, she wrote, the law is clear that the issue is whether, under the pending state of the law, the defendant had “fair warning” that his treatment of the plaintiff was unconstitutional. If a jury believes McNair’s testimony, she went on, then Pratt had subjected him to “unnecessary pain” in clear violation of the Eighth Amendment, and qualified immunity does not apply. In short, she stated, this case should “go to trial” rather than being dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.
The ruling made possible by Trump judge Nalbandian’s deciding vote obviously harms David McNair’s quest for compensation and justice for the injuries he suffered. It also threatens to make it harder for other mistreated prisoners to obtain justice, particularly in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In addition, the ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.