Camreta v. Greene

2011-05-26

Headline: Court permits review of appeals by officials granted immunity but vacates lower court’s ruling on warrantless in‑school child interviews because the child moved away, leaving the officials protected from damages.

Holding: The Court held that it generally may review an appeals court’s constitutional ruling at the request of government officials granted qualified immunity, but it dismissed this case as moot and vacated the Ninth Circuit’s Fourth Amendment ruling.

Real World Impact:

Allows Supreme Court review of appeals by officials granted immunity
Vacates Ninth Circuit’s ruling on warrantless in‑school interviews
Leaves the officials shielded from money damages in this case

Topics: child welfare, in-school interviews, police questioning, qualified immunity, Fourth Amendment

Summary

Background

A child protective services worker and a county deputy sheriff interviewed a nine-year-old girl at her elementary school about alleged abuse without a warrant or the parent’s consent. The child’s mother sued on the child’s behalf seeking money because the interview, the courts below said, violated the child’s protection against unreasonable seizures. The appeals court agreed the interview was unlawful but said the officials could not be forced to pay money because the law was not clearly settled.

Reasoning

The officials asked the high court to review the appeals court’s conclusion that their conduct violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court first decided that it generally may hear appeals filed by government officials who have been shielded from money damages by “qualified immunity” (a rule that protects officials from paying damages unless the law was clearly established). The Court then found this particular case no longer had a live dispute because the child moved out of the jurisdiction and was nearly an adult, meaning the school-interview practice would not affect her anymore.

Real world impact

Because the case became moot, the Court did not decide whether the in-school interview violated the Constitution. To prevent the appeals court decision from binding future cases without this Court’s review, the Supreme Court vacated the part of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion that addressed the Fourth Amendment and sent the case back for further proceedings. The ruling leaves the appeals court’s immunity decision intact and signals the Court’s willingness to consider similar appeals in other cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices differed. One justice agreed with the result but would not have expanded reviewability; another joined the opinion. A dissent warned the decision creates a broad exception to the usual rule against appeals by prevailing parties.