1. This case presents an important question dividing the circuits: Whether an appellate court has jurisdiction under Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995), and Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 3872 (2007), to reverse a district court's determination that genuine factual disputes preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity, when video evidence does not "blatantly contradict" the plaintiffs version of events.

In Johnson v. Jones, this Court held that appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review, on interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, a district court's determination that genuine factual disputes exist. 515 U.S. at 319-20 ("We hold that a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a 'genuine' issue of fact for trial."). In Scott v. Harris, this Court recognized a narrow exception: When video evidence of "undisputed authenticity" exposes the plaintiffs account to be "blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it," a court may reject it. 550 U.S. at 380-81. The question presented here is whether Scott authorized appellate courts to review the genuineness of factual disputes whenever video evidence exists in the record—as the Fifth Circuit has held—or only when a peak at such evidence "utterly discredits" the plaintiffs version of events and renders it "visible fiction," see id. at 380, as at least the First, Third, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits have held.

Whether appellate courts may review the genuineness of factual disputes in qualified immunity appeals based solely on video evidence, or only when the video utterly discredits the plaintiff's account