In two separate cases, Monday’s Supreme Court ruled that police officers are protected from lawsuits for using force against suspects.

Unsigned opinions posted in court’s periodic list of orders, both overturned lower appellate decisions.

An officer was charged with excessive force for placing his knees on a male victim during an arrest. He also tried to pry a knife from the suspect’s pocket. Two officers were sued in the second case by the estate of the man they killed and shot after he threatened them with a knife.

In both instances, the court ruled that officers had qualified immunity. The doctrine provides immunity from liability to officials unless there is evidence that they have broken the law.clearly establishedRights that are not obvious to a normal person.

Qualified immunity is a defense of police officers against being held accountable for their actions. Progressives in Congress pushed to include a provision ending the doctrinein bipartisan talks on reform of police force. Those efforts dissolved last month

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in a case where police from Union City in California responded to 911 calls alleging Ramon Cortesluna would hurt his girlfriend and their two children.

Cortesluna was directed by officers to move out of his house. One officer shouted “he’s got a knife in the left pocket.” Cortesluna dropped his hands, and was then shot with beanbag round non-lethal in the hip and stomach. The court stated that Cortesluna fell to the ground and was shot by Daniel Rivas Vilegas, an officer.

The court stated that “RivasVillegas was only in this position for eight seconds” and then stood up while holding Cortesluna by the arms. At this point, another officer took the knife out of Cortesluna.

Cortesluna filed suit, alleging Rivas–Villegas had used excessive force to violate the Fourth Amendment. The officer was convicted by a federal court, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit reversed the decision and ruled that there is “existing precedent”. [Rivas-Villegas]”

According to the Supreme Court, “To show that Rivas-Villegas was in violation of clear established law,” Cortesluna had to identify an instance that would have put Rivas -Villegas off notice that his conduct was illegal.

According to the court, he had not done so and neither the appels court nor he could “identify any Supreme Court case” that addressed facts similar to those in issue.

In the other instance, Dominic Rollice’s ex wife told 911 she was drinking and wouldn’t leave her garage.

Brandon Vick and Chase Reed arrived with Josh Girdner and Chase Reed as officers. According to the bodycam footage, they asked Rollice to turn away and grab a hammer out of the garage. Rollice reached for the hammer using both his hands, raising it up to about shoulder height. Officers shouted at him not to.

Rollice held the hammer above his head, and then “took an attitude as if it was going to be throwing the hammer at the officers”, the ruling stated. Rollice was then killed by Vick and Girdner.

Rollice’s estate filed suit claiming that officers had violated Rollice’s Fourth Amendment right not to use excessive force. District court ruled that the force used was fair and qualified immunity was applicable.

However, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Rollice’s cornering by officers at the rear of the garage. This led to deadly force.

In reversing the appellate decision, the Supreme Court stated that no precedent mentioned by the lower court “comes near to establishing the officers’ unlawful conduct” in the case.

The high court stated that courts had been repeatedly warned not to apply clearly-established law at a high level of generality.

The opinion that cited court precedent stated that qualified immunity is available to “all except the obvious incompetent” and anyone who knows or intends to violate the law. The court stated that it must have been obvious to “a reasonable officer” that his actions were illegal in the circumstances he faced.