Jun 3 2026
5th Cir. 25-40616 Panel Decision

Wertenbroch v. Hardeman

The Fifth Circuit held that a district court order denying a motion to dismiss without expressly addressing a qualified immunity defense is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. The court vacated the lower court's order and remanded the case for the district court to rule on the qualified immunity defense at the earliest possible stage.

Jun 2 2026
4th Cir. 25-1728 Per Curiam

C.L.G.; C.N.G., by and through their guardian ad litem, A.G. v. South Carolina Department of Social Services; Kerry Register

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment to a social services employee. The court held that the employee was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that children of foster parents have a constitutional right to be free from harm caused by the placement of a foster child with a history of sexual misconduct.

Jun 2 2026
5th Cir. 25-40513 Per Curiam

Copeland v. Thornton

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit brought by a pro se plaintiff against three Texas state officials. The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to overcome the defendants' claim of qualified immunity or to establish a justiciable case or controversy for declaratory relief.

Jun 2 2026
9th Cir. 2:22-cv-02334-FWS-AS Unpublished

ESTATE OF BRANDON TRANBERG-HOADLEY, ET AL. V. CITY OF GARDENA, ET AL.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity for a jail officer in a federal civil rights action arising from a detainee's suicide. The court held that existing precedent did not clearly establish that the officer's conduct violated the Constitution given the vague and inconsistent information she received about the detainee's risk.

May 29 2026
11th Cir. 2:24-cv-00704-SPC-KCD Per Curiam

Sheets v. Jimenez

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff's First Amendment claims against police officers and a municipality. The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support claims of viewpoint discrimination or municipal liability for failure to train.