⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Eleventh Circuit hears a civil-rights case arising from Justin Tolston's arrest at the Atlanta Pride Festival in Piedmont Park. Tolston says he was walking with an electric scooter and a beer when he accidentally bumped into a police officer and apologized. He says that officer poured out his drink, and another officer, Keith Wadsworth, then took him to the ground. Tolston describes himself as calm and not resisting; the officers gave a different account of an intoxicated, disorderly encounter. He sued the city and police officials over the arrest and use of force. The district court allowed false-arrest and excessive-force claims against Wadsworth to proceed because important facts were disputed. That ruling did not decide whose account was true or finally determine that the officer was liable. Wadsworth's lawyer will press a cross-appeal seeking qualified immunity, arguing that a reasonable officer could have viewed the circumstances as justifying the arrest and force even under Tolston's account. The judges will question whether that argument really accepts Tolston's version, or instead asks them to choose between competing accounts. Listen for the distinction between a legal question about what an officer could reasonably do on assumed facts, and a factual dispute about what actually happened.

Justin Tolston, Appellant/Cross Appellee v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, et al. (No. 24-11001) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued November 6, 2026.