White v. Jackson
865 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2017)
Holding
The Eighth Circuit addressed § 1983 claims arising from the Ferguson, Missouri protests, holding that officers who used excessive force against protesters — including tear gas and rubber bullets against non-violent demonstrators — could be held liable, while also analyzing qualified immunity and municipal liability under Monell.
What Happened
Following the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014, widespread protests erupted. Tracey White and other plaintiffs alleged that officers from the Ferguson Police Department and St. Louis County Police used excessive force against them during the protests. The allegations included officers firing tear gas and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters, beating individuals without provocation, and arresting people exercising their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs sued Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson, St. Louis County Police Chief John Belmar, and multiple individual officers under § 1983.
What the Court Said
The Eighth Circuit addressed multiple claims in this significant case. The court analyzed whether the officers’ use of force — including chemical agents and impact munitions against protesters — was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court also examined First Amendment retaliation claims and Monell municipal liability claims against the City of Ferguson and St. Louis County. While the court granted qualified immunity to some defendants on certain claims, it allowed other claims to proceed, recognizing that the use of military-style force against peaceful protesters could constitute a constitutional violation.
Why This Case Matters
White v. Jackson is one of the most significant § 1983 cases to emerge from the Ferguson protests and the broader Black Lives Matter movement. With 590 citations, it is widely cited in cases involving police response to protests and mass demonstrations. For pro se litigants in Missouri, this case is important because it recognizes that police cannot treat protesters as enemy combatants — the Fourth Amendment still applies during civil unrest. It also provides a roadmap for bringing claims against both individual officers and the municipalities that direct them. If you were subjected to excessive force during a protest, this case helps establish both the legal framework and the factual parallels for your claim.