Bayne v. Waters

On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided Bayne v. Waters. David Bayne, an anti-abortion activist, was arrested by Indiana Capitol Police officers in 2020 while displaying graphic signs and attempting to distribute leaflets inside the Indiana Statehouse. He was charged with disorderly conduct, but the charge was later dropped. Bayne then sued Capitol Police Chief Douglas Waters and other officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on qualified immunity grounds. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that although Bayne's actions were expressive, the law regarding disorderly conduct in that specific context was not clearly established at the time of the arrest, entitling the officers to qualified immunity.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. It ruled that the Capitol Police officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the arrest, it was not clearly established that the First Amendment prohibited arresting a demonstrator for disorderly conduct under the specific circumstances, even though the expressive activity was protected in principle. The constitutional claims were dismissed.

Whether the police officers violated David Bayne's clearly established First Amendment rights by arresting him for disorderly conduct based on the content and manner of his anti-abortion protest inside the Indiana Statehouse, and whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the relevant constitutional boundaries were not sufficiently clear in 2020.

The decision reinforces the broad protection that qualified immunity provides to law enforcement officers in First Amendment cases, making it difficult for individuals to obtain civil remedies unless the constitutional violation was evident under pre-existing precedent. It highlights the ongoing tension between protest rights and police discretion in public forums, and may influence how lower courts assess the "clearly established law" standard in similar expressive conduct disputes.