Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-659_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

As  for  malicious  prosecution,  the  plurality  did  not  even
hint that such a claim could be brought under the Fourth
Amendment.  The  plurality’s  only  two  references  to  mali-
cious  prosecution  appeared  in  the  portion  of  the  opinion 
that set out what had occurred in the lower courts.  Foot-
note 3 recounted that Albright’s complaint contained a com-
mon-law  malicious-prosecution  claim  but  that  this  claim
had  been  dismissed  without  prejudice  and  that  this  issue
was not before the Court.  510 U. S., at 269, n. 3.  Footnote 
4 then observed that there was an “ ‘embarrassing diversity
of judicial opinion’ ” in the lower courts as to whether a ma-
licious-prosecution claim was actionable under §1983, and 
the  footnote  added  that  substantive  due  process  did  not 
“furnish  the  constitutional  peg  on  which  to  hang  such  a 
‘tort.’ ”  Id., at 270–271, n. 4.  But the plurality opinion did 
not suggest that the Fourth Amendment could provide such
a “peg,” and neither did any other Justice who concurred in
the judgment.* 

B 
Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U. S. 357, also provides no support 
for  a  Fourth  Amendment  malicious-prosecution  claim.
There,  petitioner  Elijah  Manuel  brought  suit  under  the 
Fourth Amendment, alleging that he was arrested without 

—————— 

*Justice  Scalia’s  concurring  opinion  made  no  mention  of  malicious 
prosecution.    Justice  Ginsburg  mentioned  malicious  prosecution  only 
when describing Albright’s claims, see 510 U. S., at 277, n. 1, and to note 
that it was “anomalous” that Albright sought to hold a police officer (ra-
ther than a prosecutor) liable under a malicious-prosecution theory, id., 
at 279, n. 5.  Justice Kennedy, joined by JUSTICE THOMAS, filed an opinion 
concurring in the judgment and argued that “if a State did not provide a
tort remedy for malicious prosecution, there would be force to the argu-
ment that the malicious initiation of a baseless criminal prosecution in-
fringes  an  interest  protected  by  the  Due  Process  Clause.”    Id.,  at  286. 
But  he  did  not  suggest  that  a  malicious-prosecution  claim  could  be 
brought under the Fourth Amendment.