Whether the court of appeals erred in denying qualified immunity to Dr. Rodriguez-Garcia without identifying precedent clearly establishing the violative nature of his conduct, and in refusing to find that Pichardo forfeited the argument that Dr. Rodriguez-Garcia is not entitled to qualified immunity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED During a five-minute medical examination in a detention facility, Dr. Fredesvindo Rodriguez-Garcia mistakenly concluded that Fior Pichardo de Veloz, a female pretrial detainee in menopause, was a male in the midst of a gender transition. He based his conclusion on a note in Pichardo’s file indicating that she was taking hormone replacement therapy, which he knew to be prescribed to both transgender individuals and women in menopause. The court of appeals denied qualified immunity to Dr. Rodriguez-Garcia, without identifying precedent that clearly established a constitutional right and without addressing Pichardo’s decision not to raise an argument that Dr. Rodriguez-Garcia’s conduct violated clearly established law until her reply brief on appeal. The questions presented are: 1. Did the court of appeals err in denying qualified immunity in the absence of precedent clearly establishing the violative nature of Dr. RodriguezGarcia’s particular conduct? 2. Did the court of appeals err in refusing to find that Pichardo forfeited the argument that Dr. Rodriguez-Garcia is not entitled to qualified immunity?