Tippitt v. Iversen

A qualified-immunity denial can sometimes be appealed before trial. But not when the appeal depends on the officer’s version of disputed facts. The Fifth Circuit drew that line again here.

The rule

Qualified immunity shields an officer unless the right was clearly established. When a trial court denies it, the officer can sometimes appeal right away, but only on pure questions of law. If the appeal really turns on whose account of the facts is true, the appeals court has no jurisdiction to hear it yet.

The facts

During a traffic stop, an officer fatally shot a man. The two sides told different stories: whether the man was moving away with open, empty hands or rushing the officer, and whether what he held could reasonably be mistaken for a weapon. The district court found those disputes real and refused immunity.

The holding

The Fifth Circuit dismissed the officer’s appeal. It held that under the plaintiff’s version, a jury could find the man was visibly unarmed and moving away when he was shot, and that it is clearly established that an officer may not shoot a visibly unarmed person who is moving away from everyone present. Because the appeal turned on disputed facts, the court had no jurisdiction to second-guess them now.

Why it matters

This is the second recent time the Fifth Circuit has held that factual disputes strip it of jurisdiction over an early immunity appeal. For a plaintiff, it means the “he was a threat” narrative cannot win the case on paper when the video and the physical evidence tell another story. The facts go to a jury.

Tippitt v. Iversen, No. 25-40397 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026) (unpublished; persuasive under 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4). Analyzed here for the lawyering, not the politics. This is general information, not legal advice.