“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?
An off-duty police officer filed a false arrest complaint against two other officers for arresting him for battery because they knew or should have known he acted in self-defense.
What happened in this case?
Malcolm Brogsdale, an off-duty Chicago police officer, was in his apartment late one night with his girlfriend when he heard loud banging on his front door. The girlfriend called the police were called but the banging continued, causing damage to the front door. The assailant, an acquaintance named Billy Reynolds, continued to threaten Brogsdale, even after police arrived. As Brogsdale tried to buzz the two police officers in, Reynolds moved past them, would not respond to their commands to stop, and appeared “irate and intoxicated.” Brogsdale placed his hands on Reynolds to prevent him from harming him or others. At that point, the police officers arrested Brogsdale for battery and Reynolds for criminal damage to property.
After the battery charges against him were dismissed, Brogsdale filed a federal suit against the officers for false arrest. The district court dismissed his complaint, maintaining that Brogsdale had committed battery against Reynolds and that Brogsdale had not established self-defense. Brogsdale appealed to the Seventh Circuit, where the decision against him was affirmed in January 2026 by Trump judges Thomas Kirsch and Amy St. Eve, with a dissent by Obama appointee David Hamilton, in Brogsdale v Torres-Corona.
How did Trump judges Kirsch and St. Eve rule?
Judges Kirsch and St. Eve issued an unsigned order that affirmed the decision dismissing Brogsdale’s complaint. They maintained that there is “too much that this complaint leaves unsaid” about the facts that could support Brogsdale’s claim of self-defense.
How did Judge Hamilton dissent?
Judge Hamilton explained that “at trial,” Brogsdale would have to prove that the facts known to the officers showed that he was acting in self-defense, but that it was improper to require that proof at the pleading stage. This contradicts the Supreme Court’s view in “numerous” cases, he went on, that the level of detail in the complaint was “more than sufficient”. The case should be decided “when witnesses provide evidence rather than on the pleadings.”
Why is the result harmful?
The decision by Trump judges Kirsch and St. Eve obviously harms Malcolm Brogsdale in his effort to get justice for the false arrest he suffered, and sets a bad precedent for comparable cases at least in the Seventh Circuit, including Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. 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.