⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fourth Circuit hears an appeal in a prisoner's civil-rights suit against South Carolina correctional officers. Joshua Jeter says officers assaulted him at Broad River Correctional Institution, and that others stood by instead of intervening. The claims include an incident behind his complaint under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, called PREA, and a separate April twenty twenty-one use of force. The officers dispute his account and say videos contradict it. The district court found genuine factual disputes and let some claims proceed; the officers now seek qualified immunity before trial. Qualified immunity protects officials from civil damages unless their conduct violates a clearly established right that a reasonable official would have known. The two prongs discussed here ask whether the plaintiff's supported version describes a constitutional violation, and whether the right was clearly established at the time. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the case has ended. The court can review legal immunity questions now, but generally cannot revisit which disputed events actually happened. Under Scott versus Harris, a court need not accept a version of events so blatantly contradicted by the record that no reasonable jury could believe it. Carmen Ganjehsani will ask the court to reverse the denial of immunity; John Warren will defend the ruling allowing Jeter's disputed claims to proceed.

Joshua Jeter v. Miguel Cleveland (No. 25-6425) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 14, 2026.