McDonough v. Smith (18-485)

argument 18-485

McDonough v. Smith

Supreme Court of the United States 58 min 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the case McDonough v. Smith about and how does it begin?

John G. Roberts 0:01

Next this morning, case eighteen four hundred eighty five, McDonough versus Smith. Mr Catio,

Paul Catio 0:07

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may please the court. McDonough's Section 1983 suit claimed that Smith brought and maintained criminal proceedings against him based on fabricated evidence. The closest common law analogy to that claim is malicious prosecution, which also focuses on the wrongful initiation and maintenance of criminal proceedings. Smith has never pointed to a better or any other analogy, and a common law The statute of limitations for malicious prosecution.

Elena Kagan 0:39

Uh require uh the finding of probable cause. No, it or the absence of it?

Paul Catio 0:45

It doesn't. There's two different constitutional violations, Justice Otomayor. We have identified both in our complaint and in the courts below, as well as here. The Fourth Amendment, which does have a probable cause element, and the district court at page fifty six A said McDonough's claim is the absence of probable cause. And so with respect to the Fourth Amendment. With respect to the Fifth Amendment, the elements do not actually talk about do pro don't talk about probable cause. Instead they talk about is there a reasonable likelihood that you can do that. So what they need to

Elena Kagan 1:15

do. Why do you need an acquittal? Um it well that at least is the government's position. Yours is not quite that. But why if we're going to import malicious prosecution that waits for a favourable termination. Um is it necessary for your argument that we adopt something if it's the closest analogy that we

Paul Catio 1:39

It's not at all necessary, Justice Tamayor. It is sufficient and we would certainly win under that. That's part of that is our second theory. But our first theory, you're absolutely right, and it's a much more straightforward way of deciding this case and it tracks Justice Kagan's opinion for the court in Manuel. Decide narrowly and decide simply that the favorable term uh that that uh the common law analogy here is malicious prosecution and you borrow the limitations rule of malicious prosecution. Well Mr. Cat now

Samuel A. Alito 2:08

this case uh this case has my head spinning because you Uh we're asked to determine when a claim accrues. But I don't know what provision of the Constitution this is based on, and therefore I don't know what the elements of this claim are. And depending on the elements, uh that i they may point to different accrual rules and certainly they might point to different common law analogies. So can you clarify this? I mean you say it's based on the Fourth Amendment, the fifth i the due process, I don't know whether it's procedural or substantive or both, it's based on the Sixth Amendment. So what's it based on?

Paul Catio 2:45

So Justice Alito, we agree with the Solicitor General that in this case you don't need to specify because the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process clause swim to exactly the same result. That is, you can have a common law analogy like malicious prosecution that covers both Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment purposes. Well why

Samuel A. Alito 3:06

why do they s I I'm not sure they swim to the same result? Um I'm pretty sure they don't swim at all. The the Fourth Amendment uh usually is satisfied if there's probable cause. Uh So that would seem to suggest that probable cause the absence of probable cause is an element of your Fourth Amendment claim.

How do the parties argue whether malicious prosecution is the proper common‑law analogy?

Samuel A. Alito 3:29

Procedural due process requires a deprivation, so that seems to require an element of causation. Substantive due process doesn't require any of that. Sixth Amendment, I have no idea how that applies here. So you still can't tell me what it is based on. Justice

Paul Catio 3:47

Toledo, we have identified the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments time and time again. The District Court says so. The Second Circuit at pages two, three, four, six, seven, eight, all talk about the due process challenge we make here. And you are absolutely right. There is a little daylight between probable cause, as Justice Otamayora was saying, and the reasonable probability that a process is not a very important thing. Prosecutor wouldn't have done what he did but for the fabricated evidence.