The Supreme Court has handed down Pearson v. Callahan, the Fourth Amendment/ qualified immunity case on which I wrote the cert petition and merits briefs, reversing the Tenth Circuit unanimously in a decision by Justice Alito. The Court ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity but that it would not reach the Fourth Amendment merits, taking this case as an opportunity to overturn the "order of battle" requirements of Saucier v. Katz (which had held that in a civil case with qualified immunity issues, courts must first decide the constitutional question and only then determine whether qualified immunity protected the government officials). The relative surprise, at least to me, was that the overruling of Saucier was unanimous and no one filed a concurring opinion.

  The overruling of Saucier is big news for the world of constitutional torts. The new regime restores the discretion of the "order of battle" to the lower courts to decide the constitutional and qualified immunity issues in the order that they believe is best. From the opinion:

Because the two-step Saucier procedure is often, but not always, advantageous, the judges of the district courts and the courts of appeals are in the best position to determine the order of decisionmaking will best facilitate the fair and efficient disposition of each case. . . . Our decision does not prevent the lower courts from following the Saucier procedure; it simply recognizes that those courts should have the discretion to decide whether that procedure is worthwhile in particular cases.

(Sorry, link fixed, and comments, too, I hope.)