Opinion ID: 3064997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pearson v. Callahan Discretion

Text: In Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 555 U.S. ____ (2009), the Court abandoned Saucier’s rigid two-step protocol 10818 MUELLER v. ROGERS as an inflexible mandate, concluding that, “while the sequence set forth there is often appropriate, it should no longer be regarded as mandatory.” Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 818. The court further held that the “judges of the district courts and the courts of appeals should be permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.” Id. As guidance to us with respect to deciding in a given case whether a constitutional decision on Saucier’s first prong is appropriate, the Court said, Although the first prong of the Saucier procedure is intended to further the development of constitutional precedent, opinions following that procedure often fail to make a meaningful contribution to such development. For one thing, there are cases in which the constitutional question is so fact-bound that the decision provides little guidance for future cases. Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 819. The Court added that the law elaboration purpose is not well served where the constitutional inquiry “involves a . . . question which is highly idiosyncratic and heavily dependent on the facts.” Id. (quoting Buchanan v. Maine, 469 F.3d 158, 168 (1st Cir. 2006)). The Court held, therefore, that a court may proceed to the second prong of the Saucier analysis without addressing the first, where “a court will rather quickly and easily decide that there was no violation of clearly established law before turning to the more difficult question whether the relevant facts make out a constitutional question at all.” Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 820.3 3 At our request, both parties have supplied us with their views as to the application of Pearson to this case. We thank them for their input. MUELLER v. ROGERS 10819