This Court has deliberately left open whether a
U.S Supreme Court decision (as opposed to a Circuit
Court decision) is required to "clearly establish" a con
stitutional right when refusi ng qualified immunity to
a state official. Reichle v. Howards , 566 U.S. 658, 664
666 (2012). But in guiding lower courts as to whether a
right is "clearly established," this Court has used lan
guage that allows both a narrow, case specific test and
a broad, fair warning test.s (shown
infra ). As a
result, lower court decisions have varied widely in
their approach. (shown infra ).

Below, the Ninth Circuit held it was bound by
the narrow approach taken in Kirkpatrick v. County
of Washoe , 843 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2016). Kirkpatrick
conflicts with the approach taken in other Circuits,
as well as with other Ninth Circuit cases. (shown infra )
Kirkpatrick also laments that "[n]o Supreme Court
precedent defines when a warra nt is required to seize
a child. . . ." Kirkpatrick , 843 F.3d at 793.

The issue before this Court is whether the Ninth
Circuit erred in applying the narrow approach from
Kirkpatrick ; and, if it did so err, whether any Circuit
level opinions (which state plainly that an emergency
is required to justify a warrantless child seizure) are
sufficient to "clearly establish" such law —or whether
a decision of this Court is necessary to "clearly estab
lish" such law.

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in applying the narrow approach from Kirkpatrick, and whether Circuit-level opinions stating that an emergency is required to justify a warrantless child seizure are sufficient to clearly establish such law, or whether a Supreme Court decision is necessary