Sause v. Bauer
138 S. Ct. 2561
SCOTUS2018Background
- Mary Anne Sause (pro se) sued Louisburg, Kansas police officers, the police chief, and present and former mayors under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging abusive conduct during a noise-call visit and violations of her First and Fourth Amendment rights.
- Central allegation: two officers entered her apartment, engaged in abusive conduct, ordered her to stop praying, and then cited her for disorderly conduct and interfering with law enforcement.
- She also alleged a third officer refused to investigate an assault complaint and threatened to issue a citation if she reported it elsewhere; chief and mayors failed to address officer misconduct.
- District Court dismissed for failure to state a claim, denying leave to amend; defendants asserted qualified immunity.
- On appeal, Sause (with counsel) limited argument to a First Amendment free-exercise claim; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding officers had qualified immunity.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the Tenth Circuit, and remanded, holding the complaint as liberally construed could implicate unresolved Fourth Amendment questions necessary to assess the First Amendment claim and qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ordering Sause to stop praying violated her First Amendment free exercise rights | Interfering with prayer without legitimate law-enforcement justification violates clearly established free-exercise rights | Officers entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established law covering this unusual factual scenario | Court: Free-exercise protection for prayer exists, but resolution depends on whether officers' entry/presence was lawful under the Fourth Amendment; cannot resolve First Amendment claim without that context |
| Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity | Sause: absence of prior identical case does not shield officers if conduct clearly violates constitutional rights | Defendants: lack of controlling precedent supports qualified immunity | Court: Qualified-immunity analysis cannot proceed without resolving underlying Fourth Amendment facts about consent/authority to be in apartment |
| Whether the District Court erred in dismissing claims without permitting amendment or exploring Fourth Amendment aspects | Sause: complaint, read liberally, could state Fourth Amendment claims that preclude dismissal | Defendants: dismissal appropriate; appeal focused on First Amendment only | Court: Under liberal construction of pro se complaint, Fourth Amendment issues could not be dismissed; appellate abandonment of Fourth Amendment did not eliminate need to consider it |
| Proper remand posture | Sause: case should proceed to assess factual basis and constitutional violations | Defendants: summary dismissal affirmed | Held: Grant certiorari, reverse Tenth Circuit, remand for further proceedings to determine Fourth Amendment and qualified immunity issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Sause v. Bauer, 859 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2017) (Tenth Circuit decision affirming dismissal and addressing First Amendment claim)