Whether an official may move for summary judgment on qualified immunity without a showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact?

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW 1. In Tolan, involving qualified immunity, the Court : held, “Summary judgment is appropriate only if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any ; material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a : matter of law.” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656-7 (2014). The Court emphasized “Our qualified-immunity cases illustrate the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when, as here, a court decides only : the clearly-established prong of the standard.” Id at 657. The Fifth Circuit continues to conflict with a different standard, “Normally, summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law... However, a qualified immunity ; defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the official's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” Bailey v. Iles, 87 F.4th 275, 282 (5th Cir. 2023), also Orr v. Copeland, 844 F.3d 484, 490 (5th Cir. 2016). ‘ First Question: Whether an official may move for ; summary judgment on qualified immunity without a showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact? 2. The Ninth, Seventh, and Second Circuits hold that broad profiles that can fit any number of individuals is not reasonable suspicion of a crime. The Fifth Circuit conflicts to considers broad profiles such as an out of state male driving with an “African American” female who “appeared to be considerably younger” and traveling together on a public highway (ze. I-40, as a “known drug ii corridor”) is suspicion of a crime because the male driver “was short with his responses to questions about his travel plans” and the female appeared nervous, timid, scared, and she failed to make eye contact with Teichelman and looked at the floorboard. Second Question: Whether the standard of individualized reasonable suspicion allows as “reasonable” to draw on broad profiles that can fit any number of individuals? 3.“Law enforcement agencies have become increasingly dependent on the money they raise from civil forfeitures.” Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377, 396 (2024) (Gorsuch concurring). “And it seems that, when local law enforcement budgets tighten, forfeiture activity often increases.” Id. Third Question: Whether a deprivation of a constitutional right that is rooted in the internal drive to target travelers from out of state to create probable cause in a way that leads to civil forfeiture of fungible property can be the basis of a Monell claim? 4, “The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181, 206 (2023). “The equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.” Id at 219. “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citzzens are equal before the law.” United States v. Vaello Madero, 596 U.S. 159, 178 (2022). iii Yet, “Research indicates that Black Americans are pulled over more often, searched more often, arrested more often, imprisoned more often, wrongfully convicted more often, and killed by law enforcement more often than other Americans. Qualified immunity then bars many of these individuals from securing justice, shutting the courthouse doors on a large portion of those black and brown citizens who plausibly allege that police officers targeted, surveilled, or stopped them because of their race.” Green v. Thomas, No. 2024 WL 2269133, at *8 (U.S. 8.D. Miss. May 20, 2024). : There is a growing contention that “America’s ‘long history of racism .. is unavoidably and inextricably e