Whether the Eighth Circuit's decision violated 'clearly established' law directives and the objective reasonableness standard for First Amendment retaliatory use-of-force claims

The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Petitioner Officer Eddie Boyd as to all of Respondent Fred Watson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims except his First Amendment use -of-force retaliation claim, and reversed the grant of summary judgment favoring Petitioner City of Ferguson on his Monell claim. In so doing, the Eighth Circuit rejected Officer Boyd's qualified immunity defense. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit’s split decision violated this Court’s “clearly established” law directives recognized in Reichle by relying on a generalized right not to be subjected to First Amendment retaliation, in the absence of factually analogous case law existing at the time of the encounter, and in direct conflict with the Tenth Circuit’s holdings in Hoskins v. Withers and other circuit opinions. 2. Whether this Court’s objective reasonableness standard established in Hartman v. Moore (for retaliatory prosecution) and Nieves v. Bartlett (for retaliatory arrest) should be extended to First Amendment retaliatory use -of-force cases. 3. Whether the but -for causation standard established by this Court, and expounded upon through the Eighth Circuit’s “obvious alternative explanation” standard and other circuits’ varying interpretations of the but -for causation standard, should be further clarified by this Court.