Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon

                   PRELIMINARY PRINT

             Volume 602 U. S. Part 1
                             Pages 556–571




       OFFICIAL REPORTS
                                    OF


   THE SUPREME COURT
                               June 20, 2024


Page Proof Pending Publication


                   REBECCA A. WOMELDORF
                           reporter of decisions




    NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before
  the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter
  of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543,
  pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
556                      OCTOBER TERM, 2023

                                  Syllabus


CHIAVERINI et al. v. CITY OF NAPOLEON, OHIO,
                     et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
                  the sixth circuit
       No. 23–50. Argued April 15, 2024—Decided June 20, 2024
This case involves a dispute between petitioner Jascha Chiaverini and po-
  lice offcers from Napoleon, Ohio. The offcers charged Chiaverini, a
  jewelry store owner, with three crimes: receiving stolen property, a mis-
  demeanor; dealing in precious metals without a license, also a misde-
  meanor; and money laundering, a felony. After obtaining a warrant,
  the police arrested Chiaverini and detained him for three days. But
  county prosecutors later dropped the case. Chiaverini, believing that
  his arrest and detention were unjustifed, then sued the offcers, alleging
  what is known as a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim
  under 

42 U. S. C. § 1983

. To prevail on this claim, he had to show that
  the offcers brought criminal charges against him without probable
  cause, leading to an unreasonable seizure of his person. The District
Page Proof Pending Publication
  Court, however, granted summary judgment to the offcers, and the
  Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affrmed. The Court of Appeals
  held that Chiaverini's prosecution was supported by probable cause. In
  holding this, the court did not address whether the offcers had prob-
  able cause to bring the money-laundering charge. In its view, there
  was clearly probable cause to charge Chiaverini with the two misde-
  meanors. And so long as one charge was supported by probable cause,
  it thought, a malicious-prosecution claim based on any other charge
  must fail.
Held: The presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal pro-
 ceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-
 prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge. The parties, and
 the United States as amicus curiae, all agree with this conclusion,
 which follows from both the Fourth Amendment and traditional
 common-law practice.
    Under the Fourth Amendment, a pretrial detention counts as an un-
 reasonable seizure, and so is illegal, unless it is based on probable cause.
 See Manuel v. Joliet, 

580 U. S. 357

, 364–369. Even when a detention
 is justifed at the outset, moreover, it may become unreasonably pro-
 longed if the reason for it lapses. Rodriguez v. United States, 

575 U. S. 348

, 354–357. So if an invalid charge causes a detention to start or
 continue, then the Fourth Amendment is violated. Bringing the invalid
 charge alongside a valid one does not categorically preclude this possi-
                      Cite as: 

602 U. S. 556

 (2024)                   557

                                Syllabus

  bility. As the starkest possible example, consider a person detained on
  a drug offense supported by probable cause and a gun offense that is
  not. If the prosecutor drops the (valid) drug charge, leaving the person
  in jail on the (invalid) gun charge alone, then the baseless charge has
  caused a constitutional violation by unreasonably extending the deten-
  tion. The person should not be categorically barred from bringing a
  Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim just because the base-
  less charge was brought along with a good one.
     The same conclusion follows from the common-law principles govern-
  ing malicious-prosecution suits. This Court has analogized claims like
  Chiaverini's to the common-law tort of malicious prosecution, and has
  explained that the tort can inform courts' understanding of this type of
  claim. Thompson v. Clark, 

596 U. S. 36

, 43–44. A plaintiff bringing a
  common-law malicious-prosecution suit had to show that an offcial initi-
  ated a charge without probable cause. But he did not have to show
  that every charge brought against him lacked an adequate basis. See,
  e. g., Barron v. Mason, 

31 Vt. 189, 198

 (it was no “defen[s]e that there
  was probable cause for part of the prosecution”).
     These uncontested points suffce to doom the Sixth Circuit's categori-
  cal rule barring a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim if any

Page Proof Pending Publication
  charge is valid. Of course, a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution
  suit depends not just on an unsupported charge, but on that charge's
  causing a seizure—like the arrest and three-day detention here. The
  parties and amicus curiae offer three different views of how that causa-
  tion element is met when a valid charge is also in the picture. But this
  issue is not properly before the Court, so the Sixth Circuit should ad-
  dress it on remand. Pp. 561–565.
Vacated and remanded.

   Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J.,
and Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined.
Thomas, J., fled a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined, post,
p. 565. Gorsuch, J., fled a dissenting opinion, post, p. 569.

  Easha Anand argued the cause for petitioners. With her
on the briefs were Jeffrey L. Fisher, Pamela S. Karlan, Mi-
chael H. Stahl, and George C. Rogers.
  Vivek Suri argued the cause for the United States as ami-
cus curiae urging vacatur and remand. With him on the
brief were Solicitor General Prelogar, Assistant Attorney
General Clarke, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney Gen-
558             CHIAVERINI v. CITY OF NAPOLEON

                          Opinion of the Court

eral Boynton, Deputy Solicitor General Gannon, Mark B.
Stern, Erin H. Flynn, and Brant S. Levine.
  Megan M. Wold argued the cause for respondents. With
her on the brief were Teresa L. Grigsby and Jennifer A.
McHugh.*

   Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court.
  This case involves what is often called a Fourth Amend-
ment malicious-prosecution claim under 

42 U. S. C. § 1983

.
To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff must show that a gov-
ernment offcial charged him without probable cause, leading
to an unreasonable seizure of his person. See Thompson v.
Clark, 

596 U. S. 36

, 43, and n. 2 (2022). The question pre-
sented here arises when the offcial brings multiple charges,
only one of which lacks probable cause. Do the valid
charges insulate the offcial from a Fourth Amendment
malicious-prosecution claim relating to the invalid charge?
Page         Proof Pending Publication
 *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the Cato Institute
by Steve Art and David B. Owens; for the Constitutional Accountability
Center by Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, and Brian R. Frazelle;
for the Institute for Justice by Marie Miller, Anya Bidwell, and Patrick
Jaicomo; for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by
Zachary D. Tripp, Joshua M. Wesneski, and Jeffrey T. Green; and for the
National Police Accountability Project by Charles A. Rothfeld and Eugene
R. Fidell.
   Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for the State of Iowa
et al. by Brenna Bird, Attorney General of Iowa, Eric Wessan, Solicitor
General, Patrick C. Valencia, Deputy Solicitor General, and Alexa Den
Herder, Assistant Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for
their respective States as follows: Steve Marshall of Alabama, Tim Griffn
of Arkansas, Ashley Moody of Florida, Christopher M. Carr of Georgia,
Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, Todd Rokita of Indiana, Kris Kobach of Kan-
sas, Russell Coleman of Kentucky, Elizabeth B. Murrill of Louisiana,
Austin Knudsen of Montana, Michael T. Hilgers of Nebraska, Dave Yost
of Ohio, Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson of South Caro-
lina, Marty J. Jackley of South Dakota, Jonathan Skrmetti of Tennessee,
Ken Paxton of Texas, and Sean D. Reyes of Utah; and for the Local Gov-
ernment Legal Center et al. by Gregory G. Garre.
                   Cite as: 

602 U. S. 556

 (2024)             559

                      Opinion of the Court

The answer is no: The valid charges do not create a categori-
cal bar. We leave for another day the follow-on question of
how to determine in those circumstances whether the base-
less charge caused the requisite seizure.

                                I
   This dispute began with a set of peculiar interactions be-
tween a jewelry store owner and police offcers in Napoleon,
Ohio. See generally App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a–7a. The jew-
eler, Jascha Chiaverini, bought a ring for $45 from a (petty)
jewel thief. The ring's rightful owners found out about the
sale, and asked Chiaverini to return their property. Chiav-
erini said no, so the owners contacted the police. Two off-
cers, on a later visit to the store, directed Chiaverini to sur-
render the ring to its owners. But Chiaverini refused their
request too, saying that it contradicted a letter he had just
received from the police department telling him to retain the
Page Proof Pending Publication
ring as evidence. And when repeating his refusal to another
offcer the next day, Chiaverini suggested (for reasons un-
clear) that he was operating his store without a license. The
result of that (shall we say, unproftable) exchange was that
the police turned their attention from the original theft to
Chiaverini's business.
   Soon afterward, the offcers launched a criminal proceed-
ing against Chiaverini in municipal court. They fled three
complaints, each charging him with a separate offense. Two
were misdemeanors: receiving stolen property and dealing
in precious metals without a license. The third was a felony:
money laundering. To support their accompanying applica-
tion for an arrest warrant, the offcers submitted an affdavit
making the case for probable cause on all three charges, but
focusing on the felony. See App. 16–17. For that charge to
succeed, Chiaverini must have known when he bought the
ring that the transaction involved the proceeds of unlawful
activity. See 

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1315.55

(A)(1) (Lexis
2018). In support of that element, the offcers averred that
560          CHIAVERINI v. CITY OF NAPOLEON

                     Opinion of the Court

Chiaverini always suspected the ring was stolen. The judge
issued the requested warrant, and the offcers arrested Chi-
averini. He remained in custody for three days, until his
arraignment. At a later preliminary hearing, the judge
heard testimony about the evidence supporting the offcers'
probable-cause allegations. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a–
7a. The offcers maintained that Chiaverini had admitted in
their interview to suspecting the ring was stolen; Chiaverini
denied making any such statement. At the hearing's conclu-
sion, the judge again found probable cause, and set the three
charges for trial.
   The county prosecutors, though, decided that they had
higher priorities. They failed to present the case to a grand
jury in the required time. The court therefore dismissed
the charges.
   But Chiaverini decided not to let matters lie. After all,
he had been arrested and held for three days, he thought
Page Proof Pending Publication
unjustifably. So he sued the offcers under § 1983, alleging
what is known as a Fourth Amendment claim for malicious
prosecution. To prevail on that claim, he had to show
(among other things) that the offcers brought criminal
charges against him without probable cause. See Thomp-
son, 596 U. S., at 43–44. In addressing that issue, he gave
special attention to the felony charge for money laundering.
According to Chiaverini, the offcers lacked probable cause
for that charge for two reasons. First, they had no reason
to think he knew the ring was stolen; indeed, he said, their
claim that he had admitted as much was an out-and-out lie.
And second, they could not show—as, in his view, Ohio law
required—that the ring was worth more than $1,000; its
value was far less, more in line with its $45 purchase price.
So Chiaverini concluded that his suit satisfed the “without
probable cause” element of a Fourth Amendment malicious-
prosecution claim.
   After the District Court granted summary judgment to
the offcers, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit af-
                   Cite as: 

602 U. S. 556

 (2024)             561

                      Opinion of the Court

frmed. It did so without addressing either of Chiaverini's
arguments about the felony charge's basis. In the Sixth Cir-
cuit's view, there was clearly probable cause to support the
two misdemeanor charges the offcers had fled. See App.
to Pet. for Cert. 11a–16a. And because that was true, the
court thought, the validity of the felony charge did not mat-
ter. “So long as probable cause supports at least one charge
against Chiaverini (like his receipt-of-stolen-property viola-
tion),” then his malicious-prosecution claim “based on other
charges (like his money-laundering charge) also fail[s].” 

Id.,

at 10a. Or said another way, a single valid charge in a pro-
ceeding would insulate offcers from a Fourth Amendment
malicious-prosecution claim relating to any other charges, no
matter how baseless.
   In taking that position, the Sixth Circuit stepped out on
its own. Three other Courts of Appeals have held that the
presence of probable cause for one charge does not automati-
cally defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution
Page Proof Pending Publication
claim alleging the absence of probable cause for another
charge. See Williams v. Aguirre, 

965 F. 3d 1147

, 1159–1162
(CA11 2020); Johnson v. Knorr, 

477 F. 3d 75

, 83–85 (CA3
2007); Posr v. Doherty, 

944 F. 2d 91

, 100 (CA2 1991).
   We granted certiorari to resolve that circuit split, 601
U. S. ––– (2023), and we now vacate the decision below.

                                II
   Section 1983 enables an individual to recover damages
from a state or local offcial for the deprivation of a constitu-
tional right. Such a suit is of course premised on a constitu-
tional violation. But its elements and rules may also be
shaped by common-law tort principles, against whose back-
drop § 1983 was enacted. See Manuel v. Joliet, 

580 U. S. 357

, 370 (2017). To determine the precise contours of a con-
stitutional claim under § 1983, we have held, a court should
identify the “most analogous” common-law tort to the consti-
tutional harm alleged. Ibid. And the court should incorpo-
562          CHIAVERINI v. CITY OF NAPOLEON

                      Opinion of the Court

rate that tort's requirements to the extent consistent with
“the values and purposes of the constitutional right at issue.”
Ibid.; Thompson, 596 U. S., at 43.
   The claim Chiaverini brought—a Fourth Amendment
malicious-prosecution claim—emerged from that method.
The constitutional violation alleged in such a suit is a type
of unreasonable seizure—an arrest and detention of a person
based on a criminal charge lacking probable cause. In
Thompson v. Clark, we analogized a suit alleging that
Fourth Amendment wrong to the common-law tort of mali-
cious prosecution. See id., at 43–44. The “gravamen” of
both, we reasoned, is “the wrongful initiation of charges
without probable cause” (though in the Fourth Amendment
context, those charges must cause a seizure as well). Id.,
at 43, and n. 2. Because of that similarity, the malicious-
prosecution tort can inform a court's understanding of the
kind of claim Chiaverini has brought.
Page Proof Pending Publication
   The question here is whether a Fourth Amendment
malicious-prosecution claim may succeed when a baseless
charge is accompanied by a valid charge. The Court of Ap-
peals, as described above, answered that question with a cat-
egorical no: Even if the felony count lacked probable cause,
the Sixth Circuit held, Chiaverini could not recover because
the misdemeanor counts were adequately supported. See
supra, at 560–561. But a funny thing happened on the way
to this Court. The offcers now agree with Chiaverini that
there is no such fat bar. See Brief for Offcers 24–27; Brief
for Chiaverini 2–3. And the United States as amicus cu-
riae also argues that the Sixth Circuit rule is wrong. See
Brief for United States 10. We agree with them all. Con-
sistent with both the Fourth Amendment and traditional
common-law practice, courts should evaluate suits like Chi-
averini's charge by charge.
   Consider frst how that result follows from established
Fourth Amendment law. Under that Amendment, a pretrial
detention (like the one Chiaverini suffered) must be based
                   Cite as: 

602 U. S. 556

 (2024)           563

                      Opinion of the Court

on probable cause. See Manuel, 580 U. S., at 364–369.
Otherwise, such a detention counts as an unreasonable sei-
zure. And even when a detention is justifed at the outset,
it may become unreasonably prolonged if the reason for it
lapses. See Rodriguez v. United States, 

575 U. S. 348

, 354–
357 (2015). So if an invalid charge—say, one fabricated by
police offcers—causes a detention either to start or to con-
tinue, then the Fourth Amendment is violated. And that is
so even when a valid charge has also been brought (although,
as soon noted, that charge may well complicate the causation
issue, see infra, at 564–565). Take the starkest possible ex-
ample. A person is detained on two charges—a drug offense
supported by probable cause and a gun offense built on lies.
The prosecutor, for whatever reason, drops the (valid) drug
charge, leaving the person in jail on the (invalid) gun charge
alone. The inclusion of the baseless charge—though
brought along with a good charge—has thus caused a consti-
Page Proof Pending Publication
tutional violation, by unreasonably extending the pretrial
detention. Even the Napoleon offcers agree, offering a sim-
ilar example. See Brief for Offcers 25; see also Brief for
United States 17–18. So the bringing of one valid charge in
a criminal proceeding should not categorically preclude a
claim based on the Fourth Amendment.
   And the same conclusion follows from the common-law
principles governing malicious-prosecution suits when § 1983
was enacted. As noted above, a plaintiff in such a suit had
to show that an offcial initiated a charge without probable
cause. See Thompson, 596 U. S., at 44; supra, at 562. He
did not have to show, however, that every charge brought
against him lacked an adequate basis. Rather, courts in
that era assessed probable cause charge by charge. “[I]f
groundless charges” are “coupled with others which are well
founded,” explained one State Supreme Court, the ground-
less ones could still “constitute a valid cause of action.”
Boogher v. Bryant, 

86 Mo. 42, 49

 (1885). Another agreed: It
was no “defen[s]e that there was probable cause for part of
564          CHIAVERINI v. CITY OF NAPOLEON

                      Opinion of the Court

the prosecution.” Barron v. Mason, 

31 Vt. 189, 198

 (1858).
Or as a leading treatise from the era summarized the rule:
“It is not necessary that the whole proceedings be utterly
groundless.” 2 S. Greenleaf, Law of Evidence 400 (10th ed.
1868); see 1 F. Hilliard, Law of Torts or Private Wrongs
§ 1, p. 435, n. (b) (4th ed. 1874). One bad charge, even if
joined with good ones, was enough to satisfy the malicious-
prosecution tort's “without probable cause” element.
   All that dooms the Sixth Circuit's categorical rule barring
a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim if any
charge is valid. That rule receives support from neither
half of the claim's name—neither from the Fourth Amend-
ment nor from the malicious-prosecution tort we have in-
voked as an analogy. And the question is not close, as
shown by the parties' decision not to contest it in this Court.
   The parties, almost needless to say, have found a sub-
stitute ground of disagreement, involving the element of cau-
Page Proof Pending Publication
sation. As noted earlier, a Fourth Amendment malicious-
prosecution suit depends not just on an unsupported charge,
but on that charge's causing a seizure—like the arrest and
three-day detention here. See supra, at 562. The parties
and amicus curiae offer three different views of how that
causation element is met when a valid charge is also in the
picture. Chiaverini's test is the easiest to satisfy. On his
view, when both valid and invalid charges are brought before
a judge for a probable cause determination, the warrant the
judge issues is irretrievably tainted; so any detention de-
pending on that warrant is the result of the invalid charge.
See Reply Brief 10–11 (citing Williams, 965 F. 3d, at 1165);
Tr. of Oral Arg. 5–6, 26–28. The United States disagrees,
arguing for the use of a but-for test to discover whether the
invalid charge, apart from the valid ones, caused a detention.
See id., at 41–43. The question then would be whether the
judge “in fact [would] have authorized” the detention had
the invalid charge not been present. Id., at 43. And fnally,
the offcers urge a still stricter test. In their view, the ques-
                  Cite as: 

602 U. S. 556

 (2024)           565

                     Thomas, J., dissenting

tion is whether the judge, absent the invalid charge, could
have legally authorized the detention—regardless of what he
really would have done. See Brief for Offcers 20–21.
   But that new dispute is not now ft for our resolution.
The test for fnding causation is no part of the question we
agreed to review. For that reason, it was not fully briefed.
And most important, the court below did not address the
matter, nor have many others. “[W]e are a court of review,
not of frst view.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 

544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7

 (2005). So we leave the causation question in the hands
of the Sixth Circuit, as it further considers Chiaverini's
Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim.
   We accordingly vacate the judgment of the Court of Ap-
peals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
                                            It is so ordered.

  Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins,
Page
dissenting. Proof Pending Publication
   Jascha Chiaverini sued several city offcials for damages
under 

42 U. S. C. § 1983

. He alleged that they violated his
Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to a mali-
cious prosecution. I continue to adhere to my belief that a
“malicious prosecution claim cannot be based on the Fourth
Amendment.” Manuel v. Joliet, 

580 U. S. 357

, 378 (2017)
(Alito, J., joined by Thomas, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I
would affrm the dismissal of Chiaverini's claim.
   To raise a successful claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege the deprivation of “rights, privileges, or immunities
secured” to him by the Constitution. 

42 U. S. C. § 1983

.
“In order to fesh out the elements of th[e alleged] constitu-
tional tort,” the Court generally analogizes to common-law
torts. Manuel, 580 U. S., at 378 (opinion of Alito, J.); see
also Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U. S. 477

, 483–484 (1994). In
this case, Chiaverini claims that he was seized without prob-
able cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Chiaver-
566           CHIAVERINI v. CITY OF NAPOLEON

                       Thomas, J., dissenting

ini principally relies on this Court's decision in Thompson v.
Clark, 

596 U. S. 36

 (2022), to argue that the appropriate tort
analog for this claim is malicious prosecution. In Thomp-
son, the Court held that malicious prosecution, a tort ad-
dressing “the wrongful initiation of charges without proba-
ble cause,” is most analogous to a Fourth Amendment
unreasonable-seizure claim. 

Id., at 43

.
   Thompson was wrongly decided. A malicious-prosecution
claim bears little resemblance to an unreasonable seizure
under the Fourth Amendment. Consider what is required
to establish a claim of malicious prosecution. A plaintiff
must show that “(i) the suit or proceeding was `instituted
without any probable cause'; (ii) the `motive in instituting'
the suit `was malicious,' . . . ; and (iii) the prosecution `termi-
nated in the acquittal or discharge of the accused.' ” 

Id.,

at 44 (quoting T. Cooley, Law of Torts 181 (1880)). These
elements have no overlap with what is required to establish
Page Proof Pending Publication
a Fourth Amendment seizure violation.
   First, an unreasonable seizure can occur without any
prosecution—for instance, if a person “is arrested without
probable cause” and “released before any charges are fled.”
596 U. S., at 51–52 (Alito, J., dissenting). Second, an unrea-
sonable seizure does not depend on the seizing offcial's mo-
tives. “[W]hile subjective bad faith, i.e., malice, is the core
element of a malicious prosecution claim, it is frmly estab-
lished that the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonable-
ness is fundamentally objective.” Manuel, 580 U. S., at 379
(opinion of Alito, J.). Thus, “[i]f a law enforcement offcer
makes an arrest without probable cause, the arrest is unrea-
sonable and therefore unconstitutional even if the offcer har-
bors no ill will for the arrestee. Likewise, if an offcer
makes an arrest with probable cause, there is no Fourth
Amendment violation regardless of the `actual motivations
of the individual offcers involved.' ” Thompson, 596 U. S.,
at 52 (opinion of Alito, J.) (quoting Whren v. United States,

517 U. S. 806, 813

 (1996)). Third, an unreasonable seizure
                   Cite as: 

602 U. S. 556

 (2024)           567

                     Thomas, J., dissenting

violates the Constitution regardless of how any subsequent
prosecution is resolved. See Manuel, 580 U. S., at 379 (opin-
ion of Alito, J.).
   Nor is an unreasonable seizure necessary to prove a
malicious-prosecution claim. A malicious prosecution can
occur without any seizure at all. For example, “[t]here are
cases in which defendants charged with nonviolent crimes
agree to appear for arraignment and are then released pend-
ing trial on their own recognizance. These defendants . . .
may bring a common-law suit for malicious prosecution . . . ,
but they are not seized.” 

Thompson, 596

 U. S., at 52–53.
And, “since a malicious-prosecution claim does not require a
seizure, it obviously does not require proof that the per-
son bringing suit was seized without probable cause.” 

Id., at 53

.
   Malicious prosecution is therefore not an appropriate tort
analog for a § 1983 claim alleging a seizure in violation of
Page Proof Pending Publication
the Fourth Amendment. The Court has never provided a
fulsome explanation for why it has concluded otherwise.
When the Court frst recognized a malicious-prosecution
claim under the Fourth Amendment in Thompson, it essen-
tially adopted the holdings of certain lower courts. Id., at
43. The Court offered two meager sentences to justify
doing so. It reasoned that “the gravamen of the Fourth
Amendment claim for malicious prosecution . . . is the wrong-
ful initiation of charges without probable cause. And the
wrongful initiation of charges without probable cause is like-
wise the gravamen of the tort of malicious prosecution.”
Ibid. That is incorrect. A malicious-prosecution claim pro-
tects against the malicious initiation of charges, but the
Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches
and seizures—it does not matter whether the offcial acted
with malice or charges are ever initiated. See id., at 54–
55 (opinion of Alito, J.). Today, the Court rests solely on
Thompson's mistaken reasoning to conclude that Chiaverini
can raise his claim. See ante, at 562.
568             CHIAVERINI v. CITY OF NAPOLEON

                          Thomas, J., dissenting

   The Court's decision to forge ahead with combining the
malicious-prosecution and Fourth Amendment frameworks
will inevitably create confusion. As I have explained, an un-
reasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment requires a
seizure; a malicious-prosecution claim does not. Supra, at
566. To resolve this mismatch, the Court has decided that
a plaintiff must show that a malicious prosecution caused an
unreasonable seizure. See Thompson, 596 U. S., at 43, n. 2;
ante, at 558, 564. While that grafting solved one problem,
it created several more. Because the Court has mixed two
distinct legal frameworks, it is unclear what doctrines actu-
ally govern its requirement that a malicious prosecution
cause a seizure. For example, if a plaintiff has multiple
charges, how does a court determine whether a particular
unfounded charge caused the seizure? See ante, at 564–565
(listing three possible causation theories). What type of ev-
idence is relevant? See Brief for Petitioners 40 (arguing
Page Proof Pending Publication
that Chiaverini would not have been seized absent the un-
founded charge since a similar defendant with a credible
charge was not seized). And, what happens if an unfounded
charge merely changes the nature of the seizure? See Brief
for United States as Amicus Curiae 18 (arguing that an un-
founded charge causes a seizure if it results in a more force-
ful arrest). The Court's claim for malicious prosecution
under the Fourth Amendment requires resolving these ques-
tions and more. To date, the Court has offered little guid-
ance on how to do so.* And, because the claim at issue is
the Court's own creation, lower courts cannot turn to the

   *The Court purports to offer some guidance today by rejecting the
Sixth Circuit's “categorical rule barring a Fourth Amendment malicious-
prosecution claim if any charge is valid.” Ante, at 564. But, it is not
clear that the Sixth Circuit even has such a rule. See Howse v. Hodous,

953 F. 3d 402

, 409, n. 3 (2020) (recognizing that the underlying inquiry is
whether an unfounded charge “change[s] the nature of the seizure”); see

2023 WL 152477

, *4 (Jan. 11, 2023) (citing Howse). It is thus unclear what,
if any, doctrinal progress today's decision makes.
                    Cite as: 

602 U. S. 556

 (2024)             569

                      Gorsuch, J., dissenting

common law or Fourth Amendment doctrine for answers.
Instead, they are left to make their best guess at how the
Court would defne its novel claim.
  I would take a far simpler course. Instead of forcing a
square peg into a round hole by judging an unreasonable
seizure based on the malicious-prosecution tort, I would
“hold that a malicious-prosecution claim may not be brought
under the Fourth Amendment.” Thompson, 596 U. S., at 60
(opinion of Alito, J.). I respectfully dissent.

  Justice Gorsuch, dissenting.
  Section 1983 performs vital work by permitting individu-
als to vindicate their constitutional rights in federal court.
But it does not authorize this Court to expound new rights
of its own creation. As this Court has put it, § 1983 does
not turn the Constitution into a “ ` “font of tort law.” ' ” Al-
bright v. Oliver, 

510 U. S. 266, 284

 (1994) (Kennedy, J., con-
Page Proof Pending Publication
curring in judgment) (quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 

451 U. S. 527, 544

 (1981)).
  Despite that settled rule, the Court today doubles down
on a new tort of its own recent invention—what it calls a
“Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution” cause of action.
Ante, at 558; see Thompson v. Clark, 

596 U. S. 36

, 43–44
(2022). Respectfully, it is hard to know where this tort
comes from. Stare for as long as you like at the Fourth
Amendment and you won't see anything about prosecutions,
malicious or otherwise. Instead, the Amendment provides
that “[t]he right of the people to be secure . . . against unrea-
sonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
  As its language suggests, the Fourth Amendment supplies
nothing like a common-law claim for malicious prosecution.
Ante, at 566 (Thomas, J., dissenting); see Cordova v. Albu-
querque, 

816 F. 3d 645

, 662–663 (CA10 2016) (Gorsuch, J.,
concurring in judgment). Just consider some of the differ-
ences. This Court has long held that the touchstone of the
Fourth Amendment is objective reasonableness. But a
570          CHIAVERINI v. CITY OF NAPOLEON

                     Gorsuch, J., dissenting

common-law malicious-prosecution claim focuses on the
defendant's subjective intent. Ante, at 566 (opinion of
Thomas, J.). The Fourth Amendment addresses the per-
missibility of a seizure. But a common-law malicious-
prosecution claim can (and usually does) proceed without
one. Ante, at 567. A seizure in violation of the Fourth
Amendment can (and often does) take place without the initi-
ation of any judicial process. But the whole point of a
malicious-prosecution claim is to contest the appropriateness
of past judicial proceedings. Ante, at 566. For all these
reasons, it's “pretty hard to see how you might squeeze any-
thing that looks quite like the common law tort of malicious
prosecution into the Fourth Amendment.” Cordova, 

816 F. 3d, at 663

 (opinion of Gorsuch, J.).
   That is not to say no constitutional hook exists for a § 1983
claim addressing the malicious use of process. Rather, it
seems to me only that such a claim would be more properly
Page Proof Pending Publication
housed in the Fourteenth Amendment. See Albright, 

510 U. S., at 283

 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). After all, unlike the
Fourth Amendment, that provision does focus on judicial
proceedings, guaranteeing those who come before our courts
“due process” of law. See ibid.; Thompson, 596 U. S., at 43,
n. 2; Cordova, 

816 F. 3d, at 662

 (opinion of Gorsuch, J.). In-
hering in due process is a promise that courts will respect,
at the least, those “customary procedures to which freemen
were entitled by the old law of England.” Sessions v. Di-
maya, 

584 U. S. 148

, 176 (2018) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in
part and concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks
omitted). And the common law has long recognized a tort
of malicious prosecution to protect against the abuse of judi-
cial proceedings. Albright, 

510 U. S., at 283

 (opinion of
Kennedy, J.).
   Admittedly, a procedural due process claim for malicious
prosecution may come with its own set of limitations. After
all, when a State provides exactly the tort claim the plaintiff
seeks, it provides him with all the process he is due. See
                    Cite as: 

602 U. S. 556

 (2024)             571

                      Gorsuch, J., dissenting

id., at 284

; Cordova, 

816 F. 3d, at 662

 (opinion of Gorsuch, J.).
And, consistent with the common law, many States recognize
claims for malicious prosecution. Indeed, the relevant State
here (Ohio) permits such a cause of action. Notably, too,
unlike the tort this Court seeks to cobble together under the
aegis of the Fourth Amendment, Ohio's tort does not require
a plaintiff to prove that he was seized. Compare Trussell
v. General Motors Corp., 

53 Ohio St. 3d 142

, 145–146, 

559 N. E. 2d 732

, 735–736 (1990), with ante, at 558 (majority opin-
ion). Of course, should a State fail to provide a malicious-
prosecution claim to secure his procedural due process
rights, or a fair forum for entertaining such a claim, a federal
court may need to act to vindicate § 1983 and the promise of
procedural due process. Cordova, 

816 F. 3d, at 665

 (opinion
of Gorsuch, J.). But in many cases (this one included), a
State malicious-prosecution claim may be both easier for a
plaintiff to prove than anything the Court today provides
and suffcient to ensure any process he is due. Albright, 510
Page Proof Pending Publication
U. S., at 285–286 (opinion of Kennedy, J.); Cordova, 

816 F. 3d, at 662

 (opinion of Gorsuch, J.).
   For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
                            Reporter’s Note

  The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication
and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination
makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of
publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions
for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of
Page Proof Pending Publication
the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and
who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was
argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may
include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant
punctuation. The following additional edits were made:

p. 557, line 3: “gun” is replaced with “(valid) drug”
p. 557, line 4: “drug” is replaced with “(invalid) gun”