Russell v. Scott

── Russell v. Scott ── Case No.: 24-3312 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 19, 2026 Category: General 24-3312 Russell v. Scott In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term 2025 Argued: October 17, 2025 Decided: March 19, 2026 No. 24-3312 JUSTIN RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JASON SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant, COMMISSIONER OF THE VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Vermont No. 20-cv-184, Geoffrey W. Crawford, District Judge. 1 24-3312 Russell v. Scott Before: BIANCO, PÉREZ, and MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. Justin Russell alleges that Jason Scott violated his constitutional rights by sexually abusing him while he was a pretrial detainee in the custody of the Vermont Department of Corrections (“DOC”). Russell claims that Scott, then a DOC corrections officer at Southern State Correctional Facility, grabbed, squeezed, and twisted his genitals under the false pretense of searching him for contraband. On summary judgment, the District Court concluded that Scott was not entitled to qualified immunity as to Russell’s claim that he committed sexual abuse in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We agree. Our jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal is limited to determining whether—accepting Russell’s version of events—Scott violated Russell’s clearly established constitutional rights. We conclude he did. To reach that conclusion, we first clarify that the test for analyzing sexual abuse claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment is not the same as the test for Eighth Amendment claims brought by convicted prisoners. While the Eighth Amendment proscribes cruel and unusual punishment, the Fourteenth Amendment protects pretrial detainees—whom the state may not punish at all— from any objectively unreasonable treatment. Therefore, an officer’s intentional contact with a pretrial detainee’s genitalia or intimate area, which does not serve a legitimate nonpunitive purpose or is excessive in relation to that legitimate nonpunitive purpose, violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Scott’s contact with Russell—on Russell’s account of the facts—plainly violated that standard. Moreover, even applying the higher standard for sexual abuse claims under the Eighth Amendment, Scott’s alleged conduct would violate Russell’s clearly established constitutional rights. We therefore affirm the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity, dismiss the remaining aspects of Scott’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. DAVID BOND, Law Office of David Bond, PLLC, Burlington, VT, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 2 24-3312 Russell v. Scott DAVID MCLEAN, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Montpelier, VT, for Defendant- Appellant. MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judge: Justin Russell alleges that Jason Scott violated his constitutional rights by sexually abusing him while he was a pretrial detainee in the custody of the Vermont Department of Corrections (“DOC”). Russell claims that Scott, then a DOC corrections officer at Southern State Correctional Facility (“SSCF”), grabbed, squeezed, and twisted his genitals under the false pretense