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
April 25, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.