McDonough v. Smith
The Court ruled that a person who says a prosecutor fabricated evidence against him can't sue over it until his criminal case ends in his favor, not from the moment he first learns the evidence is fake.
Because Edward McDonough was acquitted at his second trial, his lawsuit filed just under three years later was timely, and the case goes back to the lower courts to proceed.
“McDonough could not bring his fabricated-evidence claim under §1983 prior to favorable termination of his prosecution.”
The core holding on when the lawsuit's deadline begins to run.
How it got here: A federal trial court dismissed McDonough's fabricated-evidence claim as untimely; the Second Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve a circuit split.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Edward McDonough processed ballots for a county election board when forged absentee ballots surfaced in a 2009 New York primary. Youel Smith, appointed to investigate and prosecute, allegedly fabricated evidence against McDonough, including falsified affidavits and coached witnesses, to secure an indictment and pursue two trials. McDonough was acquitted at the second trial in December 2012 and later sued Smith for fabricating evidence.
The question before the Court
When a prosecutor allegedly fabricates evidence to convict someone, when does the clock start ticking for that person to sue?
Why it matters
People facing prosecution based on evidence they believe was fabricated no longer have to choose between suing the prosecutor mid-trial (risking their own defense) or missing the filing deadline. The ruling gives criminal defendants nationwide a clear, predictable window to sue after their case ends, rather than while it's still pending.
What changes now
The case returns to the lower courts, since the Supreme Court only decided when the clock started running, not whether McDonough's claim ultimately succeeds. The Second Circuit and district court must now address remaining issues, including whether prosecutorial immunity might still bar the claim. This is a final ruling on the timeliness question, not a temporary order.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide what the actual elements of a fabricated-evidence claim are, whether such a claim exists under a specific constitutional provision, or whether prosecutorial immunity might still block McDonough's suit. It also left open how the rule applies to fabricated-evidence claims not tied to a loss of liberty from the criminal proceedings themselves.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas argued the Court should have dismissed the case entirely because McDonough never identified which specific constitutional right was violated, making it impossible to properly analyze the timing question. He said the Court should first pin down the elements of the underlying claim -- including whether it even exists -- before deciding when the deadline to sue begins, and criticized the majority for assuming the right's contours without deciding them.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that when a federal civil rights claim under §1983 begins to run is a question of federal law that generally borrows from common-law tort principles, and the analysis starts by identifying the specific right at stake -- here, an assumed due-process right not to lose liberty because of fabricated evidence.
- The Court looked for the closest common-law analogy and found it in malicious prosecution, a tort that does not become complete until the underlying criminal case ends in the accused person's favor, because pursuing it earlier would risk clashing with an ongoing prosecution.
- Drawing on its earlier decision in Heck v. Humphrey, which barred certain civil suits that would undermine an existing criminal conviction, the Court reasoned that letting a fabricated-evidence suit proceed while criminal charges are still pending creates the same risk of conflicting judgments and interference between civil and criminal courts.
- The Court weighed the practical fallout of starting the clock earlier: defendants would be forced to choose between letting their claims expire or suing the very prosecutor handling their ongoing case, exposing their defense strategy and self-incrimination concerns.
- Applying this reasoning, the Court concluded that a complete and present claim for fabricated evidence used to deprive someone of liberty does not exist until the criminal proceedings conclude in the defendant's favor.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Heck v. Humphrey (512 U. S. 477)
The Court relied on Heck's reasoning about avoiding conflicting civil and criminal judgments to decide this case.
Distinguishes Wallace v. Kato (549 U. S. 384)
The Court said Wallace's false-arrest rule doesn't apply because that claim differs from a fabricated-evidence claim.