Citing references

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025). The second prong of a qualified immunity analysis—whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established’—presents courts with “unique difficulties at the pleading stage.” Id.

County of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025) (citing George v. Rehiel, 738 F.3d 562 , 571–72 (3d Cir. 2013)). The court may address the two prongs in any order. James v.

Of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 86 (3d Cir. 2025) (cleaned up).

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025).

County of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025) (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002)).

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025). Given our finding that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a violation of their First Amendment right, the first condition is met.

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 86 (3d Cir. 2025). As explained above, McGee-Heim has not shown that the Amended Complaint fails to plausibly state a violation of a constitutional right.

County of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025). If the specific right was not clearly established, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. A.

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 72 Id. at 89 . 73 Id. 74 See Jacobs v. Cumberland Cnty., 8 F.4th 187, 191 (3d Cir. 2021). 75 Id. IV.

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 84, 90 (3d Cir. 2025). As it currently stands, Wellpath is a proper defendant under Section 504.

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025). “A right is clearly established if ‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.’” Urda v.

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025) (collecting cases). This is because the clearly established prong requires a “fact-intensive inquiry” tailored to the individual case. Id. (citations omitted).

County of Bucks, 141 F. 4th 76 , -17- 84 (3rd Cir. 2025) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)).

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025) (citing George v. Rehiel, 738 F.3d 562, 571-72 (3d Cir. 2013)). It is Platz’s burden to plead and prove entitlement to qualified immunity.

County of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 84-85 (3d Cir. 2025) (first quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982); then quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987)).

County of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 84 (3d Cir. 2025). In March 2020, New Jersey Governor Philip D. Murphy issued an executive order declaring the COVID-19 pandemic a public health emergency.

Rule 12(b)(6) is often ‘a mismatch for immunity and almost always a bad ground for dismissal.’” 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) and Fogle v. Sokol, 957 F.3d 148 , 162 n.14 (3d Cir. 2020)).

| Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025) (citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 741 (2002)).

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 87 (3d Cir. 2025) (citations omitted).

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025) (cleaned up). | Regarding the contours of any state-granted right, state law interpreted by the highest court in that state provides officials with fair warning. Id. at 645 (citing | Thompson v.

Cty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 84 (3d Cir. 2025) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)).

of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 84 (3d Cir. 2025) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 23 (2009)). 11 The Amended Complaint states that though the “BOE’s ‘investigation determined that [I.A.]

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025) ("Rule 12(b)(6) is often a mismatch for immunity and almost always a bad ground for dismissal.") (cleaned up).

of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025) (“Rule 12(b)(6) is often ‘a mismatch for immunity and almost always a bad ground for dismissal.’”) (citing Fogle v. Sokol, 957 F.3d 148 , 162 n.14 (3d Cir. 2020)); Leveto v.

Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 84 (3d Cir. 2025) (citing TD Bank N.A. v. Hill, 928 F.3d 259, 270 (3d Cir. 2019)). At the outset, we note that we will consider only those issues that Thornton has raised before this Court. See M.S. ex rel. Hall v.