On March 21, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Manuel v. City of Joliet, which presented the question of "[w]hether an individual's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure continues beyond legal process so as to allow a malicious prosecution claim based upon the Fourth Amendment." The case was supposed to clarify the Court's fractured ruling of from more than twenty years ago in Albright v. Oliver, but instead, the Court left the question open and provided little guidance to lower courts, and to states and municipalities.
Tillman J. Breckenridge, a partner at Bailey & Glasser, LLP in Washington, D.C., and Lisa Soronen, the Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center, both provided amicus briefs in the case. They will explore the background to Manuel, the Court's ruling, and its impact on future government litigation. They will further discuss how the decision fits into broader due process jurisprudence, including the evolution of liability for municipalities and state and local officials for process-based errors.
- Understand the relationship between claims against government actors for malicious prosecution and the constitutional amendments relating to process
- Grasp the evolution of this area of law, and where it may be headed
- Know the background of Manuel, and the basis for the Supreme Court's decision
- Discuss the broader issue of process-based claims against governmental defendants, and related issues on the rise in the courts