I'm Elizabeth Slattery and I'm Tiffany Bates and welcome to SCOTUS 101 where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court, what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.

This week we're talking about qualified immunity, the never-ending Supreme Court case, and we'll interview Supreme Court reporter Mark Walsh.

So the court issued some opinions this week. The first was Casella v. Hughes, which is a qualified immunity

case, and this was a per curiam opinion in which the court held that a police officer

was entitled to qualified immunity because he didn't violate clearly established law in this case.

The facts in these cases are always so strange.

The police received reports of a woman engaging in erratic behavior with a large kitchen knife.

So she was like outside hacking a tree, which is a big kitchen knife.

And the officer showed up to find Amy Hughes holding this knife walking towards another woman standing nearby.

And the backstory gets even weirder.

So this other woman was Hughes's roommate.

And Hughes, who had a history of mental illness, was mad about the roommate owing her $20.

And so the roommate came home to find her holding her dog, who was named Bunny, in one hand,

and this kitchen knife in the other, threatening to kill the dog.

Seems like a pretty reasonable reaction, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Anyway, Hughes was outside walking towards the roommate with the knife, and the officers commanded her to drop it at least twice, but she didn't comply.

And believing that Hughes was a danger to the roommate, one of the officers shot and injured her.

And Hughes sued the officer under Section 1983, alleging he had used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The district court granted summary judgment to the officer in the first instance, but then

the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that his actions violated clearly established law under

...