Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Supreme Court should accept broad agreement among civil rights plaintiff, police, and the federal government in malicious prosecution case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio, a case in which the Court is considering whether police officers who file baseless criminal charges against a person are exempt from liability simply because the officers also filed other charges against that person that were supported by probable cause, Constitutional Accountability Center Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle issued the following reaction:

Chief Justice Roberts has long endorsed the principle that “if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” That straightforward principle should guide the Court in resolving this case.

In this case, all sides now agree that police officers can be held liable for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment if they make baseless accusations that cause a person’s arrest. The Supreme Court agreed to review this case because one of the courts of appeals wrongly ruled to the contrary. All that’s necessary to decide this case, therefore, is to reject that erroneous ruling, which even the police officer defendants are no longer attempting to justify.

Additional questions about exactly how a falsely accused person can prove their claim should be left to future cases. For now, the Supreme Court should simply hold, as we showed in our amicus brief, that under the Fourth Amendment and federal civil rights law, police officers are not off the hook for making groundless accusations simply because they managed to combine those false charges with one legitimately brought charge. Such a decision would be a small but important step forward for police accountability.

##

Resources:

Case page in Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/chiaverini-v-city-of-napoleon-ohio/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

##

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
July 8, 2026

Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding

Slate
CAC’s David H. Gans wrote about the Roberts Court for Slate magazine. Read more in Slate.
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
July 1, 2026

Furthering Inclusive Constitutionalism

Jotwell
Professor Allison Brownell Tirres reviewed recent scholarship on the Black Conventions of Reconstruction by CAC’s David H....
Civil and Human Rights
June 30, 2026

CAC Release: Roberts Court’s Conservative Supermajority Hollows Out Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia...
By: David H. Gans, Praveen Fernandes, Joshua Blecher-Cohen
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC

In Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Constitution permits the Department of Labor to use administrative proceedings to impose civil monetary penalties on employers who violate...