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
November 9, 2025

Supreme Court to hear case on religious rights in prison

Deseret News
Oral arguments on Monday in Landor v. Louisiana will focus on religious liberties while incarcerated.
Civil and Human Rights
November 10, 2025

CAC Release: In Landor Case, Question of Whether Person in Prison Who Suffered Undisputed Religious Liberty Violation Has Any Meaningful Remedy Hangs in the Balance

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Landor v....
Civil and Human Rights
October 7, 2025

Supreme Court Appears Poised to Strike Down Ban on Anti-LGBTQ ‘Conversion Therapy’

The New Civil Rights Movement
The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to strike down a Colorado ban on so-called conversion...
Civil and Human Rights
October 6, 2025

Conversion Therapy Ban Case Tests Traditional State Police Power

Bloomberg Law
A therapist’s challenge to Colorado’s ban on treatment the state says harms LGBTQ+ youths may...
Civil and Human Rights
October 7, 2025

CAC Release: Colorado Banned Conversion Therapy Because It Is Harmful. That Conversion Therapy is Accomplished Through Speech Does Not Make Colorado’s Law Unconstitutional Under the First Amendment.

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chiles v....
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

A.C. v. Martinsville

In A.C. v. Martinsville, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is considering whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Skrmetti requires it to overrule its previous decisions recognizing...