Now that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has joined the United States Supreme Court, most observers predict the law will shift on many issues. This common view presumably contains at least some truth. The conventional wisdom, however, overlooks something important: the Supreme Court’s ability to shift the law is constrained by the cases presented to it and how they are presented. Lower courts are thus an important part of the equation. Elsewhere, the authors have offered a model of certiorari to demonstrate how lower courts in theory can design their decisions to evade Supreme Court review; they also explain why such “cert-proofing” tools are problematic. In this Article, they apply that model to civil rights litigation involving qualified immunity, with particular focus on Justice Barrett’s confirmation. On the assumption that Barrett’s views will be more like those of the late Justice Antonin Scalia (for whom she clerked) than those of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (whom she replaced), the model predicts lower court judges who do not share Barrett’s views will be tempted, at the margins, to try to evade Supreme Court review. This temptation may be particularly strong for cases that involve qualified immunity, which present unique cert-proofing opportunities. At the same time, the model predicts judges who do share Barrett’s views will be less inclined to use such tools. Thus, although there likely will be no meaningful change in how most cases are decided, the upshot of the model is that in marginal cases it is possible that lower courts will change how they address civil rights litigation.

既然艾米·康尼·巴雷特大法官已加入美国最高法院，大多数观察家预测该法律将在许多问题上发生变化。这种普遍的观点大概至少包含一些真理。然而，传统智慧忽略了一些重要的事情：最高法院改变法律的能力受到提交给它的案件以及如何提交的限制。因此，下级法院是等式的重要组成部分。在其他地方，作者提供了一个调卷模型，以证明下级法院在理论上如何设计他们的决定以逃避最高法院的审查；他们还解释了为什么这种“证明证明”工具存在问题。在本文中，他们将该模式应用于涉及合格豁免的民权诉讼，特别关注巴雷特大法官的确认。假设巴雷特的观点更像已故大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚（她为她担任书记员）的观点，而不是已故大法官露丝·巴德·金斯伯格（她所取代）的观点，该模型预测不同意巴雷特观点的下级法院法官将受到诱惑，在边缘，试图逃避最高法院的审查。对于涉及合格豁免的案件，这种诱惑可能特别强烈，这提供了独特的证明机会。同时，该模型预测，与巴雷特观点相同的法官将不太倾向于使用此类工具。因此，尽管大多数案件的裁决方式可能不会发生有意义的变化，但该模型的结果是，在边缘案件中，下级法院可能会改变他们处理民权诉讼的方式。