In White v. Goforth, (6th Cir., May 18, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Sheriff's Deputy Jacob Goforth had qualified immunity in a suit against him for failing to intervene in conduct by Daniel Wilkey, an on-duty officer who is also a preacher. Wilkey called Goforth asking him to witness a baptism at a nearby lake. The court explained:
Unbeknownst to Goforth, Wilkey had stopped Shandle Riley earlier that evening and found her in possession of marijuana. Wilkey told Riley that if she agreed to let him baptize her, he would issue her a citation and not take her to jail. She agreed and followed Wilkey in her car to a nearby lake. When Goforth arrived, he saw what appeared to be a consensual, if improper, situation.... Critically, however, Goforth never learned of Wilkey’s improper quid pro quo.....
Reversing the Tennessee district court's denial of qualified immunity, the appeals court said in part:
Riley asserts that Wilkey’s coerced baptism of her violated the Establishment Clause. That may well be so. Coercion “was among the foremost hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment.”... Threatening jail time for refusing Christian baptism seems an easy fit for this category. But even if Wilkey violated Riley’s constitutional rights, Wilkey is not before us; only Goforth is. There is nothing in the record indicating that Goforth knew of Wilkey’s quid pro quo....
The district court thought that, even absent coercion, it was clearly established that an officer in Goforth’s position would be “liable for failing to intervene if a reasonable observer” would have perceived a governmental endorsement of religion, as defined by the Lemon test and its progeny....We cannot agree. First, Kennedy clarified that the Supreme Court had “long ago abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot.” ... If that is so, then Goforth could not have had a clearly established duty to stop Wilkey from violating it....
Moreover, we can find no case that had ever found an officer liable where his fault was not his own endorsement of religion, but his failure to intervene in someone else’s.
