1. According to the Fifth Circuit, a reasonable juror could conclude that it was clearly unreasonable for a law-enforcement officer to fire multiple bullets at an unarmed, non-threatening suspect from 90 yards away—only seconds after first seeing him—but the law in this country is not "clearly established" enough for a reasonable law-enforcement officer to make the same conclusion. Is this absurd result mandated by this Court's holdings? And if so, do those holdings need to be re-examined?

Whether the Fifth Circuit's qualified immunity analysis sets a dangerous precedent for the Civil Rights Act, exposing flaws in the Supreme Court's qualified immunity jurisprudence