· 23 comments · Save ·
Announcements Mar 26, 2026 at 1:23 AM

US Supreme Court rules Vermont police officer is immune from excessive-force suit stemming from 2015 protest

Posted by 804Brady

https://vtdigger.org/2026/03/25/us-supreme-court-rules-vermont-police-officer-is-immune-from-excessive-force-suit-stemming-from-2015-protest/
🚩 Report this post

23 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
Vaeon Mar 26, 2026 +1
The police retain the right to be violent.
1
OldSchoolBubba Mar 26, 2026 +1
This is a leading indicating of how they're going to rule in favor of ice's illegal tactics when the lawsuits begin in earnest next year. No worries. SCOTUS has set themselves up to be replaced and held accountable for years of taking bribes and other nefarious activities. The end result will be term limits and more stringent reporting required on their "vacations" and other similar events.
1
blazesquall Mar 26, 2026 +1
Is this fan fiction? What lawsuits next year?. Through what mechanism is the supreme Court going to be held accountable for those things?
1
OldSchoolBubba Mar 26, 2026 +1
Lawsuits??? You do realize there's existing Laws and Regulations on the books covering government officials conduct and reporting yes? There's also judicial review and oversight as well.
1
False_Cookie8226 Mar 26, 2026 +1
Technically the 14th amendment. All 9 justices gave aid and comfort to an insurrectionist when they illegally put Trump back on the ballot. Deciding that states can't remove candidates sure... but the constitution clearly states only a 2/3 vote from congress had the authority to put him back on the ballot. So all 9 justices can be required to get a 2/3 vote to stay in office (same for Trump and all Republicans that supported him in anyway after Jan 6th) it would only take a simple majority of house to demand a petition to stay in office for any of insurrectionist or those that supported them... congress can even enforce that demand, its the only thing they have the authority to enforce themselves.
1
blazesquall Mar 26, 2026 +1
Now we're talking.. This is a high-octane blend of constitutional theory, sovereign citizen style logic, and a total inversion of how the 14th Amendment actually works.. this is definitely my kind of fanfic.. taking specific legal terms and rearranging them into a scenario that doesn't exist in US law.. There's way to much to unpack.. but a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Court ruled that the power to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates belongs to Congress, not individual states... Disagreeing with a court's interpretation of a statute isn't aid and comfort in a legal sense.. it’s just how the judicial system works. 
1
False_Cookie8226 Mar 26, 2026 +1
Only congress had the authority to put his name back on, simple as that. The only correct decision was to tell Trump to seek relief from congress, they did not, in so doing they in used their office to support a criminal over the constitution.
1
platinumarks Mar 26, 2026 +1
The 14th Amendment does not apply to excluding a person from holding the office of President due to insurrection. It applies to those who "hav\[e\] previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States." Trump was not a member of Congress, not a member of a state legislature, and not an executive or judicial officer of a state, so those do not apply. The remaining term, "officer of the United States," does not include the President under both the Constitution and jurisprudence. The Constitution gives the President power to "appoint all Officers of the United States," meaning the President is not considered to be an officer (otherwise, he would be appointed himself). This interpretation goes back to 1823 with *United States v. Maurice*, which implicitly included this in the Supreme Court's decision. Do I think Trump should be our President? No, absolutely not. He's done more than enough other things to warrant not being President. But this one argument does not hold legal merit, as he was not subject to the 14th Amendment's prohibition in the first place.
1
False_Cookie8226 Mar 26, 2026 +1
Oh, you say the president can do whatever he wants and its legal. Gotcha.
1
platinumarks Mar 26, 2026 +1
That's absolutely \*not\* what I said. I merely said that the 14th Amendment's text did not disqualify him from being President. He has clearly engaged in acts that are illegal and has been convicted of those acts, and can be impeached for further crimes that he has committed. The Constitution, as currently written, simply does not disqualify him under that amendment.
1
False_Cookie8226 Mar 26, 2026 +1
Only if you interpret the president as not being an officer of the United States. Which he clearly is. Any interpretation otherwise is wrong. Any precedent which claims he is not is clearly irrational.
1
platinumarks Mar 26, 2026 +1
Well, then I'll just warn it's a very hard climb to overturn precedent that old that's been reaffirmed since then by the Supreme Court, especially when the text of the Constitution is quite clear that officers of the United States are, by definition, appointed by the President and therefore cannot include the President himself.
1
25point4cm Mar 26, 2026 +1
F*** them. Keep your eye on the ball and get the vote out in November. You’ve got to topple the first domino before you eye the next ones.
1
Taurius2 Mar 26, 2026 +1
When your government declares they are the only ones allowed to kill and declare themselves immune to any oversight, then by define the government is a dictatorship.
1
GarageFridgeSoda Mar 26, 2026 +1
I agree, but just so we're clear the government did that here long before you or I were even born.
1
Icy_Selection_7988 Mar 26, 2026 +1
No single US citizen is supposed to have immunity.Our system was designed so no individual is above the law. Trump is only temporary. History says everything is going to change for him one day very soon.
1
FullUSBDrive Mar 26, 2026 +1
If there is a history. He's very determined to end the world on his way out.
1
Miserable_Pie_8337 Mar 26, 2026 +1
Fascists love violence, especially when their police use it against civilians...
1
BigHungryFlamingo Mar 26, 2026 +1
Crooked. 
1
Interesting-Risk6446 Mar 26, 2026 +1
Sue the police department. The police department is not immune.
1
fxkatt Mar 26, 2026 +1
Circuit Appeals Courts have backed up Vermont local and state police violence/deaths over the past decades--so not surprised by the Supremes getting in on the act.
1
Gold_Drummer_4077 Mar 26, 2026 +1
Every excessive force case should follow these bad cops around like an albatross. It's just like what happens to pedo priests that keep getting transferred, put them all on a website that shows the real person they are.
1
thistimelineisweird Mar 26, 2026 +1
How long until a victim joins a local PD to get vengeance under the guise of immunity?
1
← Back to Board