Camreta v. Greene

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=Camreta v. Greene

|ArgueDate=March 1

|ArgueYear=2011

|DecideDate=May 26

|DecideYear=2011

|FullName=Bob Camreta v. Sarah Greene, personally and as next friend of S.G., a minor, and K.G., a minor; James Alford, Deputy Sheriff, Deschutes County, Oregon v. Sarah Greene, personally and as next friend of S.G., a minor

|Docket=09-1454

|USVol=563

|USPage=692

|ParallelCitations=131 S. Ct. 2020; 179 L. Ed. 2d 1118; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4016

|Prior=Greene v. Camreta, [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5095519/89/greene-v-camreta/ No. 6:05-cv-06047] (D. Or. Mar. 23, 2006), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 588 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20091210103 1011] (9th Cir. 2009); cert. granted, {{ussc|562|960|2010|el=no}}.

|Subsequent=On remand, 661 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20111031108 1201] (9th Cir. 2011).

|Holding=In the general case the Court may review a lower court's constitutional ruling at the behest of government officials who have won final judgment on qualified immunity grounds but could not for this case due to details specific to it.

|OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_09_1454/argument

|OpinionAnnouncement=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_09_1454/opinion

|Majority=Kagan

|JoinMajority=Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Alito

|Concurrence=Scalia

|JoinConcurrence=

|Concurrence2=Sotomayor

|JoinConcurrence2=Breyer

|Concurrence/Dissent=

|JoinConcurrence/Dissent=

|Dissent=Kennedy

|JoinDissent=Thomas

|Dissent2=

|JoinDissent2=

|LawsApplied=

}}

Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the general case the Court may review a lower court's constitutional ruling at the behest of government officials who have won final judgment on qualified immunity grounds but could not for this case due to details specific to it.{{ussc|name=Camreta v. Greene|volume=563|page=692|pin=697|year=2011}} ("This Court generally may review a lower court's constitutional ruling at the behest of a government official granted immunity. But we may not do so in this case for reasons peculiar to it.")