Whether the Sixth Circuit contradicted a fundamental principle of this Court's qualified immunity precedent

QUESTION PRESENTED Millington Reserve Officer Rickie Friar allegedly sexually abused Plaintiffs’ minor children while he was babysitting them at his house between May, 2013 and August, 2015. During this time, a YMCA employee or his parent allegedly reported to the Millington Police Department that Friar had taken pictures of minor children at a YMCA pool, and the step-grandmother of one of Respondents’ minor children allegedly asked a lieutenant at the department to investigate Friar’s background to assuage her suspicions of possible pedophilia. An unidentified reserve officer allegedly told Interim Chief Rita Stanback (2012-2014) and Chief Frank Tennant (2014-2015) that Friar should be investigated because he had heard from an unidentified chief deputy with the Shelby County Sheriff's Office that Friar had been terminated from the Shelby County Sheriff's Office more than 30 years earlier for sexual misconduct with young girls and allegedly told Interim Chief Stanback and Chief Tennant that he had personally observed Friar engage in “improper conduct towards young female children while on duty.” The question presented is: Whether the Sixth Circuit contradicted a fundamental principle of this Court’s qualified immunity precedent when it denied qualified immunity to Petitioners on the grounds that their challenged conduct violated clearly established law and premised its determination solely upon cases that were decided after Petitioners’ challenged conduct? i