City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan – Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Sheehan case has delivered some blows to the mental health and advocacy community. We blogged about this case and its facts in a previous post. You can read the opinion here. Justice Breyer recused himself and took no part in the decision, shrinking the panel down to 8. There was an unusual alliance between Justices Scalia and Kagan who joined together to concur in part and dissent in part. But beyond all of that, a deeper reading does provide some relief for the mentally ill or disabled – at least in the 9th Circuit, and also provides a warning to parties trying to pull a fast one on the Court.

There were two questions before the court. The first dealt with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the second with qualified immunity under a possible Fourth Amendment violation. These are two very distinct questions that have different standards and legal analyses. It was the first question which held the most promise, as there has been a split among the circuits on the very question presented. However, that question was tossed aside because it was not properly briefed or argued by the City of San Francisco. Although the Court could have decided the question anyway (and some would argue that they should have), they provided a warning to any future party who in essence tries to bait and switch a novel issue with one that Supremes wouldn’t have thought twice about. We will dismiss your question. Justices Scalia and Kagan thought the majority should have gone farther and dismissed the entire petition altogether or else reward the deceptive party for their successful bait and switch.

The upside to the Court dismissing the ADA submission is that the 9th Circuit’s ruling is still good law and Ms. Sheehan may proceed to trial on this issue. Unfortunately for us in the 5th Circuit, the law still remains that “Title II does not apply to an officer’s on-the-street responses to reported disturbances or other similar incidents, whether or not those calls involve subjects with mental disabilities, prior to the officer’s securing the scene and ensuring that there is no threat to human life.” Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3d 795, 801 (5th Cir. 2000). Perhaps this circuit split will resurface in the future.

The downside of the case is another victory and expansion of qualified immunity. It could be argued that from a qualified immunity standpoint the Court’s analysis is par for the course, which is precisely the problem. The Court accepted the officers’ actions as reasonable by accepting that they were ignorant of the possibilities and therefore had the exigent circumstance to burst into her room with guns drawn and use deadly force. What’s the purpose of having crisis intervention training to deescalate situations if an officer will always be justified to use lethal force when they choose to ignore that very training? That’s like telling your kids they’ll be grounded for fighting with each other, and when an argument arises, taking the last kid standing for a burger. The Court also failed to opine on whether the officers’ second entry was reasonable when they chose the worst option available. Again, that’s like saying do A, B, C. or D but never ever do Y, and when the officer does Y… well, that’s ok, too.

The takeaways seem to be a draw. 1) There may be a remedy for the use of deadly force by law enforcement against the mentally ill under the ADA but not the Fourth Amendment, at least in the 9th Circuit. 2) Don’t bait and switch the Supreme Court.