The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant ruling on November 2, 2026, regarding qualified immunity for police officers in excessive force cases. The court's decision affects law enforcement practices and the rights of individuals during protests. The case, Johnson v. Adgar (Docket No. 25-5468), arose from an incident during a protest in San Jose, California, where Kyle Johnson was injured by a police projectile.

This ruling is crucial as it clarifies the legal standards surrounding police conduct during protests and the application of qualified immunity, which protects officers from liability unless they violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Background

The case involves Kyle Johnson, who attended a protest at San Jose City Hall on May 30, 2020. During the protest, he was struck in the leg by a 40mm foam baton round fired by Officer James Adgar of the San Jose Police Department. Johnson claimed that Adgar fired indiscriminately into the crowd, hitting him while he was not engaged in any unlawful behavior. As a result of the injury, Johnson suffered serious medical issues, including a pulmonary embolism.

Johnson filed a lawsuit against Officer Adgar and the City of San Jose, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as claims under California's Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. A jury ruled in favor of Johnson, awarding him over $1.3 million in damages against Officer Adgar, but found no liability against the City of San Jose.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and decided to reverse the district court's denial of Officer Adgar's motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity. The court ruled that while Officer Adgar's actions did violate Johnson's Fourth Amendment rights, he was entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding excessive force was not clearly established at the time of the incident. The court stated, "Officer Adgar is entitled to qualified immunity as to the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983."

The panel, consisting of Judges Richard A. Paez, Richard C. Tallman, and Mark J. Bennett, also certified a question to the California Supreme Court regarding the standard for determining whether a constitutional right is "clearly delineated and plainly applicable" under the Bane Act. Specifically, the court asked for clarification on how this standard differs from the federal standard of "clearly established" law for qualified immunity.

Impact

This ruling is significant for law enforcement and civil rights advocates. It emphasizes the complexities surrounding qualified immunity, particularly in situations involving crowd control during protests. The court's decision suggests that officers may have more protection from lawsuits in cases where the law is not clearly established, even if their actions are deemed excessive.

The ruling may affect future cases involving police conduct during protests, as it highlights the need for clearer legal standards regarding the use of force. It also raises questions about how courts will interpret the Bane Act in relation to federal civil rights claims, potentially leading to further litigation and clarification in California's legal landscape.

What's Next

The case may still have further developments, as the Ninth Circuit has instructed the district court to hold off on recalculating attorney's fees until the panel issues a decision on the Bane Act claim. Additionally, there may be further appeals or related cases pending that could influence the interpretation of qualified immunity and police conduct in similar situations.