This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Friday, February 26, 2021.

I'm Caleb Brown.

The Supreme Court has now for decades affirmed that qualified immunity for police is the order of the day, thus protecting police

officers from virtually any civil liability for misconduct.

In two recent cases, however, it appears the court is willing to begin the process of drawing at least

one line.

Cato's Jay Schweichert and Clark Neely comment.

Jay, why don't you start us off here?

What is so surprising about this case relating to qualified immunity?

So on Monday, February 22nd, the Supreme Court issued an order in a case, McCoy versus Alamo, which was an appeal from a

Fifth Circuit decision. And what is really surprising about this order is that the Supreme Court vacated the

Fifth Circuit's decision which granted qualified immunity to a prison

guard who was alleged to have essentially pepper sprayed an inmate for no reason whatsoever.

And the Supreme Court vacated and remanded this decision in light of the Taylor versus Rioja's decision which the Supreme Court issued

last November, which was another decision that time accompanied by a brief opinion that vacated and remanded a Fifth Circuit decision

granting immunity. So basically twice in short order now the Supreme Court has reversed, or rather vacated and remanded, a lower

court opinion granting qualified immunity, which is a complete dramatic change of pace from what the Supreme Court has done over the last, you know, several decades where they are almost always

reversing lower courts that deny immunity.

So it's this this this this order wasn't accompanied that deny immunity.

So this order wasn't accompanied by an opinion,

but just the mere fact that the Supreme Court now has,

you know, twice, sent a message to lower courts to be a little bit more reluctant to grant

...