WELL, GOOD: Supreme Court Rejects Qualified Immunity Defense for the First Time in Years: The case doesn’t make any change in legal doctrine. But it may be intended to send a message to lower courts. “What remains to be seen is whether the Court will follow up by considering whether qualified immunity should be abolished entirely, or at least severely pared back. . . . Thomas’ previous forceful criticism of qualified immunity leads one to wonder why he dissented without opinion in this case. The answer may be that he thinks current precedent protects the officials in question, and therefore the Court cannot rule against them unless that precedent is modified or overruled (which he might well be happy to see happen).”