Saucier Sequence
The now-optional two-step QI analysis — decide the constitutional question first, then ask if the right was clearly established.
What It Is
The Saucier sequence was the mandatory two-step analysis for qualified immunity established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001):
Step 1: Did the officer violate a constitutional right? Step 2: Was that right clearly established at the time?
Courts had to answer Step 1 first. The purpose: by deciding the constitutional question, courts would build precedent that future plaintiffs could cite to show a right was “clearly established.”
Why It Mattered
The Saucier sequence was designed to prevent the qualified immunity ratchet. If courts must decide whether a right exists before asking if it was clearly established, new rights get established over time. Future plaintiffs benefit from today’s rulings.
What Happened
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) overruled Saucier’s mandatory sequence. Courts now have discretion to address either prong first — and can skip the constitutional question entirely by going straight to “not clearly established.”
The result: fewer constitutional questions decided, fewer rights clearly established, and a widening gap between the conduct that violates the Constitution and the conduct that actually leads to liability.
Why You Should Know This
Even though the Saucier sequence is no longer mandatory, you can argue that the court should follow it. Some judges still do. If your case involves an important constitutional question that needs to be resolved — especially if it would establish the right for future cases — make the argument that the court should address the merits, not just duck behind “not clearly established.”
Key Cases
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) — Mandatory two-step sequence
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) — Made it optional