The qualified immunity analysis requires a court to answer a “threshold question: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right?”
Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151; see also Scott, 127 S.Ct. at 1775 (quoting
Saucier ). “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”
Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. “If, and only if, the court finds a violation of a constitutional right, ‘the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.’ ”
Scott, 127 S.Ct. at 1775 (quoting
Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151). In other words, qualified immunity need only be granted if there is a violation of a constitutional right, but that right was not clearly established at the time the official violated it. If there is no constitutional violation, then the plaintiff's
§ 1983 claim fails as a matter of law and the defendant is therefore entitled to summary judgment and does not need qualified immunity.
See Scott, 127 S.Ct. at 1779 (reversing court of appeals' denial of qualified immunity on the grounds that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment, without affirmatively holding that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity);
see also id. at 1780 (Breyer, J., concurring) (acknowledging
Saucier's requirement “that lower courts must first decide the ‘constitutional question’ before they turn to the ‘qualified immunity question.’ ”);
id. at 1774 n. 4 (acknowledging that “[t]here has been doubt expressed regarding the wisdom of
Saucier's decision to make the threshold inquiry mandatory, especially in cases where the constitutional question is relatively difficult and the qualified immunity question relatively straightforward,” but nevertheless not directly addressing the debate because the instant facts made the constitutional question “easily decided.”)