Qualified Immunity and the Ability to Review Constitutional Rulings that Are 'No Mere Dictum:' Camreta v. Greene 131 S.Ct. 2020 (2011)

Abstract

The federal appeal of a case tried in the federal district court seems like a simple process. A party does not get the favorable decision it wants and decides to appeal to the appellate court to have their case heard. However, it is not always so simple. For government officials who violate the constitutional rights of citizens, they can be found to be immune, under the qualified immunity doctrine, and then the government official may appeal the favorable decision to the court, when the appellate court, in dicta, makes a constitutional determination. This gives an interesting look to the fundamental doctrines of constitutional law and what cases are heard in federal courts and what qualifies as an actual decision by the court.The Supreme Court has normally not allowed prevailing parties to bring their claims into the Court; however, special exceptions can be made. In the current instance, a government official who won his case at the appellate level because he was found to have qualified immunity (meaning he had no idea that his conduct was a violation of the Constitution), appealed the judgment of the appellate court because the court determined that the action was a violation, even though, technically, the official was the winner in the case. The official appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari.Thus, the basic principles of Article III and dicta are left in quite a position. The Court now can attempt to take cases in which it can decide constitutional issues, once the initial case has been decided. This leaves room for the Court to possibly make the law in constitutional areas, without having the case actually present the issue in a typical Article III fashion. Hence, this possibly could lead the Court down a slippery slope of going outside the bounds of applying law, and into the shady area of creating it.