Opinion ID: 506278
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constitutional Tort Claims

Text: 27 Saul claims that the court erred as a matter of law in concluding that Larsen and St. Louis were immune to his constitutional tort claims. 28 Federal officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). The Supreme Court explained that, 29 Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment.... If the law at [the time an action occurred] was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to know that the law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful. 30 Id. 31 In light of Forrester and Westfall, we remand these claims also for consideration of the discretionary nature of the defendant's acts. The district court may wish to take further evidence before entering findings and conclusions.