Published vs. Unpublished Decisions: Does It Matter?
Another legal wrinkle here is that the 9th Circuit’s decision in the Dominguez case was unpublished — meaning it wasn’t intended to set a binding precedent. Alito suggested this made the ruling even weaker, but legal experts disagree.
Unpublished decisions don’t carry the same weight as published ones, but they do influence similar cases, especially when they align with existing law. The appellate panel explicitly stated that “a reasonable jury could have found that Dominguez did not appear to be reaching for a weapon when Officer Pina shot him.” And under established precedent, that means deadly force wasn’t justified.
Alito’s View: Protecting Officers or Undermining Accountability?
Justice Alito’s dissent is essentially a full-throated defense of qualified immunity. His concern? That police officers shouldn’t have to worry about lawsuits when making split-second decisions.
“To overcome qualified immunity, a party must show that an official violated a federal right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged misconduct,” Alito wrote.
In other words, Pina could not have known that killing Dominguez would expose him to a civil lawsuit because, according to Alito, the law wasn’t “clear enough” at the time.
Legal scholars like UCLA Law Professor Joanna C. Schwartz argue that this reasoning is flawed. “The notion that you have to find a prior court decision with nearly identical facts in order to clearly establish the law can be a very high barrier,” Schwartz said.
Even if Peck had been decided before the shooting, it’s unlikely Pina would have been aware of it in the heat of the moment. Officers don’t memorize legal precedents; they’re trained on general principles of law. That’s why courts have to interpret whether force was justified after the fact.
