Where a municipal employee has violated the Constitution, must a plaintiff point to 'clearly established law' (such as would overcome a defense of qualified immunity by an individual officer) in order to prove deliberate indifference for municipal liability purposes?

QUESTION PRESENTED To hold a municipality liable under § 1983 for a constitutional violation by its employee, a plaintiff must prove the municipality acted with “deliberate indifference” toward the possibility of such a constitutional violation. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S 378, 388-89 (1989). In this case, Petitioner sought to hold the city of Euclid, Ohio, accountable where a Euclid police officer shot and killed Luke Stewart in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner argued that Euclid’s official training—featuring clips from a Chris Rock sketch (sample “tip” for “how not to get your ass kicked by the police”: “get a white friend”) and cartoons of cops beating unarmed civilians— exhibited that “deliberate indifference.” The Sixth Circuit granted the police officer qualified immunity, holding that no _ clearly established law forbade his conduct. And in the Sixth Circuit—as in the First, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, but unlike in the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits—the absence of clearly established law prohibiting an individual officer’s conduct entirely forecloses a finding of “deliberate indifference” for purposes of municipal liability. The question presented is: Where a municipal employee has violated the Constitution, must a plaintiff point to “clearly established law” (such as would overcome a defense of qualified immunity by an individual officer) in order to prove deliberate indifference for municipal liability purposes? @)