“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.
What’s at stake in this case?
A man was shot and injured by police at a demonstration in San Jose.
What happened in this case?
While attending a demonstration concerning the George Floyd case, Kyle Johnson was shot by policeman James Adgar, who fired indiscriminately into the crowd. Johnson was severely injured by a foam-type bullet that hit him in the back of his knee, and filed suit in federal court. A jury found in his favor, and the trial judge rejected a claim of qualified immunity. Adgar took the case to the Ninth Circuit.
Trump judge Mark Bennett, Clinton judge Richard Tallman, and Obama judge Richard Paez agreed that Adgar had used unconstitutionally excessive force. But in a November decision, Johnson v Adgar, Tallman and Bennett agreed that Adgar did not violate “clearly established law” and should get qualified immunity from liability for damages under the Fourth Amendment. Judge Paez dissented from the immunity ruling.
Why did Judge Paez dissent?
Judge Paez explained that a previous Ninth Circuit case, which the majority had thought was distinguishable, had in fact “clearly established” that Adgar’s conduct was unreasonable and improper. In both cases, Paez wrote, the police had shot a “projectile weapon capable of causing serious and permanent injury indiscriminately into a group of protesters who did not pose an imminent risk to public safety.” In deciding otherwise, Paez concluded, the majority “overlooks our explicit obligation” to analyze the case based on the facts established at trial and in a manner that draws “all reasonable inferences” in favor of Johnson.
Why is this decision harmful?
The ruling made possible by Trump judge Bennett obviously harmed Kyle Johnson and his ability to obtain justice and damages under the Fourth Amendment for policeman Adgar’s misconduct. It also sets a bad precedent concerning qualified immunity and use of excessive force, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.