Whether a state official's qualified immunity defense to a claim for money damages necessarily fails if he cannot first prove that he had authority under state law to perform the challenged act

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has long held that a state official does not lose the federal defense of qualified immunity merely because he has acted inconsistently with a state law. See Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). This is so even if the state official “ignores a clear legal command” found in state law. Id. at 194. This case presents the following question: Whether a state official’s qualified immunity defense to a claim for money damages necessarily fails if he cannot first prove that he had authority under state law to perform the challenged act. ii PARTIES AND AFFILIATES All parties are listed in the caption of the case.