2015 protestor alleged excessive force after cop used wrist hold
By Guy Page
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Vermont state police sergeant accused of using excessive force during the arrest of a protester at the Statehouse, concluding the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.
In Zorn v. Linton, issued March 23, the Court reversed a lower court ruling and held that Sgt. Jacob Zorn could not be sued for damages under federal civil rights law because existing precedent did not clearly establish that his actions were unconstitutional.
Zorn was promoted to senior sergeant in 2022, after almost 22 years of service.
The decision comes as the Vermont Legislature is passing anti-ICE legislation clearing a path, in state courts, for citizens to sue police. The House has passed H.849, which would allow Vermonters to bring legal claims when their constitutional rights are violated by local, state, or federal officials.
Background of the case
The case stems from a January 8, 2015 protest during then-Gov. Peter Shumlin’s inauguration at the Vermont Statehouse. About 200 demonstrators gathered, with some staging a sit-in to demand universal healthcare.
When the building closed, police ordered remaining protesters to leave or face arrest for trespassing. Twenty-nine refused, linking arms and remaining seated.
According to court records, Zorn approached protester Shela Linton, who declined to stand. After warning her, he used a “rear wristlock” technique—placing her arm behind her back and applying pressure—to lift her to her feet.
Linton later sued, alleging the maneuver caused physical injuries and psychological harm, including post-traumatic stress disorder.
Lower courts split
A federal district court in Vermont sided with Zorn, finding he was protected by qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that prior case law suggested such force against a passively resisting protester could be unconstitutional.
Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court disagreed with the appeals court, emphasizing that qualified immunity protects officers unless prior cases clearly establish that specific conduct is unlawful.
The justices found that earlier precedent cited by the Second Circuit did not involve sufficiently similar circumstances—particularly where an officer warned a protester before using limited force to gain compliance.
“Reasonable officials would not interpret [prior case law] to establish” that using a wristlock after warnings to move a resistant protester violates the Constitution, the Court wrote.
Because no prior case clearly prohibited Zorn’s actions under similar conditions, the Court ruled he is shielded from liability.
Dissent raises concerns
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that a jury should decide whether the force used was excessive.
The dissent said the ruling “gives officers license to inflict gratuitous pain on a nonviolent protestor,” warning it weakens Fourth Amendment protections.
The decision appears to reinforce the high bar plaintiffs must meet to overcome qualified immunity in excessive force cases, particularly requiring closely similar prior rulings to hold officers liable. The case now ends in Zorn’s favor, with Linton’s lawsuit effectively dismissed.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Court
Living in this great land, we the American people have more rights than any citizens on the planet but with those rights come responsibilities. It seems that some people need a refresher course on how to behave when interacting with law enforcement officers of all jurisdictions, from the small town police to federal agents of the Department of Homeland Security. Most folks understand that there are rules for getting on an airliner, and if you don’t comply, you don’t fly. There are similar
rules in play for being out in public, and those rules include limits on freedom of expression. Whether you are being processed on the side of the road for DUI or a speeding infraction, or are engaging in a protest action, if you have a problem with the law itself, you don’t take it up with those who enforce the law. If you threaten, spit at, assault, direct your car toward or defy lawful orders regarding trespass violations from a LEO, you have now crossed a line. Once that line has been crossed, you may now find yourself either detained or arrested, and those statuses have a whole new set of rules. If you want to avoid sore limbs and “psychological harm, including post-traumatic stress disorder”, you should follow lawful orders.
With all the lefty loony state courts like Vermont’s making ludicrous decisions, it is reassuring to know that this US Supreme Court is holding the line on common sense, jurisprudence and solid interpretation of the Constitution.
I’m concerned about the three who were in dissent. Elections and Supreme Court vacancies have consequences. Especially with President CornPop’s autopen – I bet all three couldn’t (or wouldn’t) define what a woman is either.
I remember that night well. I was working the West wing doors checking bags for contraband. It was kinda fun, except that as I remember it was after 1100pm before we were clear from there.
Do you have any tricks to share about how to get rid of the smell?
More patchouli?
This is very frustrating about courts and justices. It would seem given the case(s) before them that they should be of similar mind set. Two courts agree and one disagrees. This causes confusion, and expense.. I hope Sgt Zorn now sues the pants of people that falsely accuse just the further harass via the courts hoping to get liberal judgements. The SCOTUS liberal women ALWAYS decide in reverse. Gender dictates judgements not the Constitution. This case indicates just how bad justice is served. If it were me in place of Sgt Zorn, I’d probably ring her neck 180 degs of normal. Another paid Soros puppet.
Wow, and our legislature is working against the police and the people in general with how many laws they are passing that makes everything easier to sue, which is the ball field they love to play on, tie them up in court. Tie the up in court when people refuse to leave the premises, tie them up in court when they refuse to pay for their green new scam legislation, by law. We are so messed up in Vermont and the worst is we are so self righteous. Humility is not our strong point.
Interesting to note, this is a major case in the entire United States, let alone Vermont. Vt Digger has forgotten to cover this, huh imagine that! And this case is very, very applicable to what is currently going on within our state, crazy protests of people stopping the police from doing their jobs.
Guy well done, well done it goes to demonstrate once again how biased and propagandized the rest of th “press” truly is. Well done , well done.
…all the news that’s fit to print…as long as it is consistent with “the agenda”. The agenda does not include preserving qualified immunity for sworn law enforcement, especially as long as orange hitler is in office. “The agenda” would never allow an individual teacher to be sued for transing a student though.
Thanks Neil, have missed your intelligent comments. Appreciate the opposite of Taxpelier and a dose of truism along with many others. KEEP THE FAITH. AI is coming.
11 years to affirm such a basic principle. The cop told the protestor to move or I’ll move you, and then he did his job. I’m ok with that. Now, watch your current VT legislators waste their time (YOUR time) trying to apply this protestor mentality within our Federalist system.
As I remember the Police gave protesters many chances to leave without consequences, before they started the removal process. I also remember it being said in the press that in order for it to be any more peacefull, that it would have to have been “Canadian” ! (that was a joke folks !) I remember police officers carring one very large woman, out and setting her down several times when she stated that “something” was hurting her. She would then give the officers the go ahead to carry her a little further, set her down again, and repeat the process. MInd you she could have stood on her own two feet, and walked out without consequences at any time. They wanted to be arrested, and processed !
Once you choose to cross that line from lawful, peaceful expression into the twilight zone of civil disobedience by violating trespass and obstruction of justice laws, you are now subject to arrest. If you dont go of your own volition, you may be subject to pepper spray and as many officers as are needed will physically drag you away, probably in handcuffs. That’s the rules. If you want to avoid the trauma, obey lawful orders. It’s not that complicated. If you crave the virtue-signaling limelight of a public arrest for a cause you really care about, be willing to take your lumps.