Case: Kyle Smith, et al. v. Rochelle Scott, Individually, and as Co-Special Administrator of the Estate of Roy Anthony Scott, et al., No. 24-1099
Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-04-22
Status: Pending
Question Presented: 1. Viewing the facts from the officers' perspective at the time, did the officers act reasonably under the Fourth Amendment by using bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially armed and actively resisting individual only until handcuffing could be accomplished? 2. Did the panel err in denying qualified immunity where no case clearly established that pre-handcuffing bodyweight pressure violates the Fourth Amendment?
The Court distributed Smith v. Scott for conference on February 27, 2026, following an unbroken string of recirculations stretching back to October 2025. That volume of conferences without a grant or denial is notable. It suggests the justices are deliberating carefully, possibly negotiating over whether to grant certiorari, hold the petition pending another case, or simply deny. The pattern warrants attention from anyone tracking Fourth Amendment use-of-force litigation.
The case arises from a Nevada incident in which officers used bodyweight pressure to hold Roy Anthony Scott to the ground while attempting to handcuff him. Scott died, and his estate brought suit. The Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity to the officers, concluding that the constitutional violation was sufficiently established. The Ninth Circuit opinion, issued July 30, 2024, is the decision now under review. Petitioner Megan Marie Wold argues for the officers; respondent Peter Goldstein defends the panel’s ruling.
The two questions presented track a familiar structure in qualified immunity petitions: first, whether the conduct was constitutionally reasonable; second, whether any violation was “clearly established” at the time. The Ninth Circuit’s answer to both questions went against the officers. The extended conference history, visible on the Supreme Court docket, may reflect disagreement among the justices about whether this case presents a clean vehicle or whether the facts are too specific to generate useful precedent.
Broader stakes are real but measured. A grant could give the Court an opportunity to clarify how the “clearly established” standard applies to specific restraint techniques, an area where circuit courts have reached varying conclusions. Two amicus briefs have already been filed, indicating organized interest in the questions presented. Whether the Court ultimately grants or denies, the prolonged deliberation itself signals that the justices view the questions as legally serious.