“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?
Police officers sought qualified immunity for harm caused to black man for imprisonment for more than 30 years
What happened in this case?
Johnnie Lee Savory, a black man, was arrested for murder when he was 14, and spent more than 30 years falsely imprisoned, as reflected in a pardon by the Illinois governor. Savory filed suit against the Peoria police and others for improperly detaining him and coercing a confession. For example, at one point, Savory was asked “rapid-fire and confusing questions,” was forced to “remove his clothing so that officers could pluck hairs from his body,” and a polygraph operator “raised nis voice and accused him of being a murderer.” Some 29 hours after the interrogation began, Savory “cried” and confessed.
In response to Savory’s lawsuit, the officers sought qualified immunity. A federal district court denied their claim and held that there were material facts in dispute. The police appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
In August, 2026, Trump judges Thomas Kirsch and Michael Brennann reversed the decision below and granted immunity to the police in Savory v Andrews. They asserted that the police had “arguable” probable cause to detain Savory and that no “clearly established law” showed their interrogation tactics were illegal. Biden judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi dissented.
Why did Judge Jackson-Akiwumi dissent?
Judge Jackson-Akiwumi firmly disagreed with the two Trump judges. As to the detention issue, she explained that the majority had improperly decided to “dig through the record, pull out new facts, and use them to usurp the district court’s summary judgment finding,” contrary to established precedent. As to the confession issue, she wrote that contrary to the majority, it was “clearly established” at the time of the police officers’ conduct that “police officers could not spend days berating a teenage boy into confessing to murder.” The case should have proceeded in the lower court.
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision by Trump judges Kirsch and Brennan obviously harmed Johnnie Lee Savory and prevented him from getting justice for the violation of rights that he suffered. It also sets a bad precedent in cases concerning immunity for police officials, particularly in the Seventh Circuit, which includes Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. The case 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.