Whether a plaintiff satisfies the 'clearly established law' prong of qualified-immunity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a plaintiff satisfies the “clearly established law” prong of qualified immunity by identifying prior authority that articulates general legal principles, or whether a prior case must be so closely analogous on the facts that the unlawfulness of the conduct in question “follows immediately” from the prior case. 2. Whether the doctrine of qualified immunity provides less protection to social workers’ child welfare decisions than it does to police officers’ law enforcement decisions. 3. Whether courts, in determining whether a right is “clearly established,” may consider cases that postdate the alleged constitutional violation.