Whether the decisional law regarding retaliation under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment was clearly established to place a public official on notice that causing the termination of a public employee violated the Petitioner's First Amendment rights?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Two district court judges denied District Attorney General Kim Helper both absolute and qualified immunity for intentionally causing the Petitioners’ terminations in retaliation for exposing public corruption and for filing a lawsuit involving a matter of public concern. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of absolute immunity to Gen. Helper, but reversed on qualified immunity. Petitioners present the following questions: 1. Whether the decisional law regarding retaliation under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment was clearly established to place a public official on notice that causing the termination of a public employee violated the Petitioner’s First Amendment rights? 2. Whether a prosecutor’s purported belief that she would be protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity after she retaliated against two police officers and intentionally caused their termination should have any bearing on whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established under existing law? i