⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Eleventh Circuit hears Joy Laskar versus Phillip Hurd and Patrick Jenkins. Laskar was a Georgia Tech professor who also ran a wireless-technology startup. University auditors investigated whether the company had improperly used university money, microchips, facilities and staff. Their report was referred to state law enforcement, and a criminal investigation and arrest followed. Laskar denies wrongdoing, saying the company was permitted to use university resources through its research-center relationship. The criminal case was dismissed as time-barred: it was brought too late, not resolved by a jury verdict. Laskar then sued university officials for damages, alleging malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment. That civil claim concerns an allegedly unlawful deprivation of liberty through criminal legal process. An earlier appeal allowed his claims against Hurd and Jenkins to proceed at the pleading stage, accepting his allegations as true rather than deciding whether they were proved. The dispute now centers on causation: whether these auditors can be held responsible for the allegedly unlawful arrest. The auditors also invoke qualified immunity, which protects officials from damages unless they violate clearly established federal law. Listen for the difference between criticizing an audit and proving that these particular defendants caused a constitutional violation.

Joy Laskar v. Hurd et al. (No. 25-11296) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued November 3, 2026.