Whether, on interlocutory review of a denial of qualified-immunity, an appellate court may reject a district court's determination of a genuine-issue-of-material-fact even if the record does not blatantly-contradict that determination

QUESTION PRESENTED When a district court denies a government official’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the official often notices an interlocutory appeal. In such a case, the court of appeals generally has jurisdiction over legal questions only, and lacks jurisdiction to review a determination by the district court that “the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial.” Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995). That rule comes with an exception: if the district court’s determination of a genuine issue of material fact is “blatantly contradicted by the record,” the appellate court need not accept it. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). In this case, the Eighth Circuit rejected a district court’s determination of a genuine issues of material fact without considering whether the record blatantly contradicted that determination. In doing so, the Eighth Circuit followed a rule adopted by the Eleventh Circuit but rejected by seven other circuits. The question presented is: Whether, on interlocutory review of a denial of qualified immunity, an appellate court may reject a district court’s determination of a genuine issue of material fact even if the record does not blatantly contradict that determination. @)