Whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. §1983 after using a rear wristlock to remove a passively resisting protester. Specifically, the Court must determine if the Second Circuit correctly found that the law was "clearly established" that such force was excessive. The central issue is whether *Amnesty America v. West Hartford* provided a high degree of specificity to put the officer on notice that his conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.

• He is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate "clearly established law."
• The Second Circuit's reliance on *Amnesty America v. West Hartford* was misplaced because that case did not hold that the specific use of a wristlock after warnings was unlawful.
• The general principle that "gratuitous" force is excessive lacks the "high degree of specificity" required to put a reasonable officer on notice.
• He provided repeated warnings to the respondent before applying the force.

• The use of a rear wristlock on a nonviolent, passively resisting protester constitutes excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
• The law was clearly established by *Amnesty America v. West Hartford*, which identified the use of rear wristlocks on similar protesters as potentially excessive.
• The officer's conduct was "gratuitous" because there was a very low safety threat and other protesters were removed without pain compliance.
• The officer failed to provide a clear request or command before initiating the wristlock.

• The Court reversed the Second Circuit, holding that the petitioner is entitled to qualified immunity.
• Under *Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna*, government officials are immune from §1983 suits unless their conduct violates "clearly established law."
• A right is clearly established only if it is "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right," per *Rivas-Villegas*.
• To establish this, courts generally must identify a case where an officer acting under "similar circumstances" was held to have violated the Constitution, as required by *Escondido v. Emmons*.
• The Court noted that the relevant precedent must define the right with a "high degree of specificity," citing *District of Columbia v. Wesby*.
• The Court found *Amnesty America v. West Hartford* did not clearly establish the law because it did not "hold" that the conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, but rather remanded for trial because a jury *could* find the force excessive or reasonable.
• The Court distinguished the facts, noting that *Amnesty America* involved a wide range of force without warnings, whereas the petitioner provided warnings, a factor relevant under *Barnes v. Felix*.
• The Court concluded that the general principle regarding "gratuitous" force lacks the specificity to resolve whether a wristlock used after repeated warnings is unlawful.