Bob Camreta, Petitioner v. Sarah Greene, Personally and As Next Friend of S. G., a Minor, and K. G., a Minor
The Court held that government officials who won on qualified immunity grounds could still appeal the lower court's underlying ruling that their seizure of a schoolchild was unconstitutional.· AI-written
563 U.S. 692 · No. 09-1454 · 2010 term · Roberts Court
Decided May 26, 2011 · argued Mar 1, 2011
Judicial power · Standing to sue: personal injury
Majority opinion: Elena Kagan
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Vacated and remanded. Bob Camreta, Petitioner won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Bob Camreta, Petitioner was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the appealability cases resolved on immunity grounds.
In the underlying action, the Ninth Circuit had ruled that government officials had performed an unconstitutional seizure on a schoolchild, but the doctrine of qualified immunity protected the officials from a civil suit over the conduct. Consequently, the officials had formally won their suit. Although statute authorized the Supreme Court to accept appeals from any party, the Court had long eschewed appeals from prevailing parties, in part because such appeals typically regarded dicta. It was thus unclear whether the government officials could appeal and challenge the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the underlying seizure was unconstitutional.
In Camreta v. Greene, the Supreme Court held that government officials could appeal the underlying constitutional ruling in a case decided on qualified immunity grounds. Per the opinion of the court, the underlying constitutional rulings had substantial prospective effect, determining whether the challenged conduct might recur. Thus they were not dicta.
However, the Court also found that government officials could not appeal this particular case. The child's guardian no longer had any incentive to defend their side of the judgement. Although the officials might perform similar conduct in the future, the schoolchild was now of approximately graduating age, and thus unlikely to be the subject of any future seizure. As the underlying dispute had become moot, the Ninth Circuit's opinion was vacated per Munsingwear.
The case also had two concurring opinions and one dissenting opinion. Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion argued that, as mootness was sufficient to decide the case, the court should not have reached the appealability question. Justice Scalia's concurring opinion suggested future reconsideration of the common practice of ruling on underlying issues before granting qualified immunity. And Justice Kennedy dissented that the appeal should be allowed, even when "it does seem that clarification is required" for an underlying constitutional ruling.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2010 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Elena KaganWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorWrote a concurrence
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Anthony KennedyWrote a dissent
Clarence ThomasJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Bob Camreta, PetitionerGovernmental employee or job applicant (Oregon)
- Respondent
- Sarah Greene, Personally and As Next Friend of S. G., a Minor, and K. G., a MinorJuvenile
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 26, 2011DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: vacated and remanded. Bob Camreta, Petitioner won.
- Mar 1, 2011ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Oregon U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
23 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: personal injury, newest first.
- Frank v. Gaos139 S. Ct. 1041Mar 20, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 1041Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Hollingsworth v. Perry570 U.S. 693Jun 26, 2013 · 570 U.S. 693Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Comcast Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Caroline Behrend et al.569 U.S. 27Mar 27, 2013 · 569 U.S. 27Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.Landmark · Administrative law549 U.S. 497Apr 2, 2007 · 549 U.S. 497Judicial powerLandmark · Administrative law5–45–4 band
- John F. Kowalski, Judge, 26th Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan, et al. v. John C. Tesmer, et al.543 U.S. 125Dec 13, 2004 · 543 U.S. 125Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Elk Grove Unified School District and David W. Gordon, Superintendent v. Michael A. Newdow et al.542 U.S. 1Jun 14, 2004 · 542 U.S. 1Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Friends of the Earth, Incorporated, et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (Toc), Inc.528 U.S. 167Jan 12, 2000 · 528 U.S. 167Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Frederick D. Raines, Director, Office of Management and Budget, et al. v. Robert C. Byrd et al.521 U.S. 811Jun 26, 1997 · 521 U.S. 811Judicial power7–27–2 band
- United States v. Hays et al.515 U.S. 737Jun 29, 1995 · 515 U.S. 737Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- State of Wyoming v. State of Oklahoma502 U.S. 437Jan 22, 1992 · 502 U.S. 437Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Lujan, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. National Wildlife Federation et al.497 U.S. 871Jun 27, 1990 · 497 U.S. 871Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Whitmore, Individually and As Next Friend of Simmons v. Arkansas et al.495 U.S. 149Apr 24, 1990 · 495 U.S. 149Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Karcher, Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly, et al. v. May et al.484 U.S. 72Dec 1, 1987 · 484 U.S. 72Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, et al. v. Brock, Secretary of Labor477 U.S. 274Jun 25, 1986 · 477 U.S. 274Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Diamond et al. v. Charles et al.476 U.S. 54Apr 30, 1986 · 476 U.S. 54Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Allen v. Wright et al.468 U.S. 737Jul 3, 1984 · 468 U.S. 737Judicial power5–36–3 band
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons461 U.S. 95Apr 20, 1983 · 461 U.S. 95Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Singleton, Chief, Bureau of Medical Services, Department of Health and Welfare of Missouri v. Wulff et al.428 U.S. 106Jul 1, 1976 · 428 U.S. 106Judicial power5–45–4 band
- O'Shea, Magistrate, Circuit Court of Alexander County, Illinois, et al. v. Littleton et al.414 U.S. 488Jan 15, 1974 · 414 U.S. 488Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Investment Company Institute et al. v. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency, et al.401 U.S. 617Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 617Judicial power6–27–2 band
- Barlow et al. v. Collins, Executive Director, Alabama Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, et al.397 U.S. 159Mar 3, 1970 · 397 U.S. 159Judicial power6–27–2 band
- Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc., et al. v. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency, et al.397 U.S. 150Mar 3, 1970 · 397 U.S. 150Judicial power6–27–2 band
- Railroad Transfer Service, Inc. v. City of Chicago et al.386 U.S. 351Mar 27, 1967 · 386 U.S. 351Judicial power8–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.