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.