Whether a constitutional remedy is available against federal officers for individual instances of law enforcement overreach in violation of the Fourth Amendment

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Hamdi Mohamud is “trying to hold a rogue law-enforcement officer responsible for landing {her] in jail through lies and manipulation.” Pet. App. 2a. The officer, Respondent Heather Weyker, was denied qualified immunity because “a reasonable officer would know that deliberately misleading another officer into arresting an innocent individual to protect a sham investigation is unlawful.” Pet. App. 81a. But applying the test from Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017), the Eighth Circuit held that Mohamud did not have a cause of action against Weyker under the Constitution because the facts of Mohamud’s case do not “exactly mirror” those of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Pet. App. 7a—8a (cleaned up). To resolve the growing circuit split on the application of Ziglar v. Abbasi, the question presented is: Whether a constitutional remedy is available against federal officers for individual instances of law enforcement overreach in violation of the Fourth Amendment.