930 F.3d 935
8th Cir.2019Background
- Four sisters (Dillard, Seewald, Vuolo, Duggar), minors when interviewed in 2006, gave confidential statements to City of Springdale Police and Washington County Sheriff about sexual abuse by their brother Josh Duggar; police promised confidentiality and no criminal charges followed.
- Law enforcement reports and a county FINS petition memorialized the interviews; appellees allege these were created and held by agencies authorized to investigate child maltreatment.
- In May 2015, a tabloid requested the reports under FOIA; the City (Chief O’Kelley and City Attorney Cate) and then the County (Officer Hoyt) released reports to the tabloid; redactions were insufficient and identifying details (parents’ names, address, ages) enabled public identification of the victims.
- The tabloid published the reports and articles; appellees suffered online harassment; a state court later ordered expungement under Arkansas law but copies persisted online.
- Appellees sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act for violation of informational privacy, and brought Arkansas tort claims (public disclosure of private fact, intrusion upon seclusion, outrage). City/County officials moved to dismiss invoking qualified immunity (constitutional claims) and qualified/statutory immunity (state law), which the district court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officials’ disclosure of juvenile sexual-abuse reports violated a Fourteenth Amendment informational-privacy right | Appellees: release of graphic, inherently private reports (minors, incest) after promised confidentiality violated privacy right | Officials: prior precedents limit informational-privacy protection; disclosure was required/allowed under FOIA or not sufficiently private | Court: Allegations plausibly state a constitutional violation—information was inherently private, involved minors, promised confidentially, and redactions were inadequate |
| Whether officials are entitled to qualified immunity for the constitutional claim | Appellees: right was clearly established that minors’ sexual-abuse identities/details cannot be disclosed in such manner | Officials: no case directly on point; law was not clearly established; FOIA defense created doubt | Court: Right was "clearly established in a particularized sense"; general constitutional principles and Arkansas disclosure statutes gave fair notice; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether Ark. Code § 21-9-301 immunizes the political subdivisions/officials from state tort suits | Appellees: alleged intentional torts (release was intentional or substantially certain to cause distress) fall outside statutory immunity | Officials: § 21-9-301 bars suit against political subdivisions/agents | Court: Under Arkansas law statutory immunity covers negligent acts but not intentional torts; complaint pleads intentional torts, so immunity not available at this stage |
| Whether state-law intentional tort claims were sufficiently pleaded to avoid dismissal | Appellees: pleaded public disclosure of private facts, intrusion, and outrage based on confidential, offensive, distressing disclosures | Officials: argued disclosures were permissible/required and not intentional torts | Court: Complaint sufficiently alleges intentional torts (release of offensive/private info with knowledge/substantial certainty of distress), so claims survive dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (recognition of constitutional privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters)
- Eagle v. Morgan, 88 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. 1996) (right to confidentiality protects highly personal information reflecting most intimate aspects)
- Peffer v. Peffer, 993 F.2d 1348 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard for informational privacy: shocking degradation/egregious humiliation or flagrant breach of confidentiality)
- Cooksey v. Boyer, 289 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2002) (examples of disclosures that do not reach constitutional threshold and discussion of qualifying standards)
- Capps v. Olson, 780 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2015) (clarifying that clearly established right must be particularized; discussion of general rules applying with obvious clarity)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (qualified-immunity analysis requires that unlawfulness be apparent in a particularized sense)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)