On April 20, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s denial of qualified immunity for two Las Vegas police officers involved in the prone restraint death of Roy Anthony Scott, a 65-year-old man experiencing a mental health crisis. The unsigned order, which drew only three dissents, remanded the case for reconsideration under the stricter standard the Court had set just four weeks earlier in Zorn v. Linton.
Together, the two rulings tighten the “clearly established law” test that Section 1983 plaintiffs must satisfy to defeat qualified immunity at summary judgment. For self-insured public entities and law enforcement liability pools, the practical effect is a higher threshold for claims to reach discovery and trial.
What the Court held
In Zorn v. Linton (March 23), a 6-3 per curiam opinion reversed the Second Circuit’s denial of immunity for a Vermont sergeant who used a rear wristlock to lift a noncompliant protester during a statehouse sit-in. The majority held that no prior case with the required “high degree of specificity” had established that this particular use of force violated the Fourth Amendment. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented, calling the decision a “one-sided approach to qualified immunity.”
In Smith v. Scott (April 20), the Court applied the Zorn standard to vacate a Ninth Circuit ruling that had allowed a wrongful death suit to proceed against officers who restrained Scott in a prone position until he died of asphyxia. Both cases were resolved by summary disposition, without full briefing or oral argument, signaling the Court views these as straightforward applications of existing doctrine.
The 6-3 alignment held in both cases, with the same three justices dissenting. That consistency suggests a durable majority on broadening the immunity shield.
Who it affects
Self-insured municipalities, counties, and public entity pools that carry law enforcement professional liability or police errors-and-omissions coverage. Transit authorities and school districts with sworn or armed security officers also carry Section 1983 exposure. The rulings are most immediately relevant to entities in the Second and Ninth Circuits, but the “clearly established” standard applies nationwide.
The reserve mechanism
The effect runs through expected claim frequency. A higher specificity bar at the summary judgment stage means fewer excessive force claims will survive to discovery, reducing both allocated loss adjustment expense (ALAE) and indemnity exposure. Public entities that track Section 1983 claims as a separate cause-of-code in their loss runs should see the ratio of filed-to-surviving claims shift over the next two to three accident years.
However, the reduction is not uniform. The Ninth Circuit’s January 2026 decision in Gonzalez v. City of Phoenix denied qualified immunity for officers who used prolonged prone restraint on a subject in medical distress, finding that “clearly established” law did prohibit continued force against a helpless detainee. Until the Ninth Circuit issues its decision on remand in Smith, public entities in California, Arizona, and other western states face a jurisdictional split that complicates frequency assumptions.
What this means for your next review
Ask your actuary whether your Section 1983 claim frequency assumption reflects the tightened qualified immunity standard or still relies on pre-2026 filing-to-trial ratios. For entities in the Ninth Circuit, flag the Gonzalez split: your development pattern for law enforcement liability may need a jurisdiction-specific adjustment until the remand resolves. And confirm your TPA is coding qualified immunity dispositions at the claim level so the effect is visible in future triangles.