Opinion ID: 2961259
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lack of Circuit Consensus

Text: “[T]o the extent that a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority could itself clearly establish the federal right [alleged], no such consensus exists here. If anything, the opposite is true.” Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. at 1778 (internal markings and citations ommitted); see Gates v. Texas Dept. Of Protective and Regulatory Servs. 537 F.3d 404, 428–29 (5th Cir. 2008) (discussing the various standards applied by the Circuits); Gomes v. Wood, 451 F.3d 1122, 1130 (10th Cir. 2006) (highlighting the broad disagreement concerning exigency in child abuse investigations); Hatch v. Dep’t for Children, Youth & Their Families, 274 F.3d 12, 21 (1st Cir. 2001) (calling Wallis the minority view). That the Circuits cannot agree over the correct legal standard further calls into question whether the Ninth Circuit’s child abuse investigation law is “beyond debate.” al–Kidd, 131 S.Ct. at 2083. JONES V. WANG 39