961 F.3d 1048
8th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (four Duggar daughters) were interviewed as minors in a 2006 child-abuse investigation; they were promised confidentiality and no criminal charges were filed.
- In 2015 a tabloid submitted Arkansas FOIA requests; Springdale PD and the Washington County Sheriff’s Office released redacted Offense and Incident Reports to the media.
- The redactions allegedly were insufficient; social media users identified Plaintiffs as victims and intense publicity followed, harming the Plaintiffs and ending their TV show.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment informational-privacy claim) and Arkansas state-law torts; the district court denied qualified immunity for individual defendants and denied official/statutory immunity on state claims.
- A panel affirmed; the en banc Eighth Circuit granted rehearing limited to qualified immunity for the individual defendants and, reviewing de novo, held the asserted constitutional right to informational privacy was not clearly established and reversed the denial of qualified immunity, while reinstating the panel’s rulings as to state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosure of redacted police reports violated a clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right to informational privacy | Dillard: release of intimate, promised-confidential reports identifying minor sexual-assault victims violated Plaintiffs’ privacy rights | O’Kelley/Cate/Hoyt: no clearly established constitutional right; at minimum, law is unsettled after Supreme Court decisions | Court: Right to informational privacy was not clearly established in Eighth Circuit; reversed denial of qualified immunity for individual defendants |
| Whether defendants are entitled to state-law official/statutory immunity from Plaintiffs’ tort claims | Dillard: statutory immunity does not apply to these intentional/reckless disclosures | Defs: Ark. Code §21-9-301 shields officials | Held by panel (reinstated): denial of state-law immunity was proper at this stage; district court may revisit later |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (establishes qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may decide qualified-immunity questions at earliest stage)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (two-part qualified-immunity test: violation and clearly established law)
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (discusses governmental collection/disclosure of personal data; did not find a Fourteenth Amendment invasion)
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (weighed privacy interest against public interest in records)
- NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (assumed, without deciding, existence of informational-privacy interest)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (addressed when circuit precedent is undermined for clearly established-law purposes)
- Alexander v. Peffer, 993 F.2d 1348 (8th Cir. precedent recognizing an informational-privacy interest)
- Eagle v. Morgan, 88 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. discussion of informational-privacy contours)
- Cooksey v. Boyer, 289 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. treatment of alleged privacy disclosures)