Adam Keup v. Nicholas Palmer

Keup v. Palmer · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · November 19, 2025 · No. 24-1114

Summary

The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Sarpy County Deputy Nicholas Palmer on qualified-immunity grounds in Adam Keup’s claims arising from a 2020 protest. The court held that Keup did not establish a causal connection between protected First Amendment activity and the pepper-ball shooting, and that the shooting and subsequent movement behind police lines did not involve clearly established Fourth Amendment seizures under the circumstances. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of the District of Nebraska.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Kobes, Circuit Judge; Gruender, Circuit Judge; Benton, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decision date
November 19, 2025
Docket number
24-1114
Procedural posture
Keup appealed the grant of summary judgment and qualified immunity to Deputy Nicholas Palmer in Keup's action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the First and Fourth Amendments.
Standard of review
The court reviewed de novo the order granting summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Keup and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor. Summary judgment was proper if no genuine dispute of material fact existed and Palmer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Qualified immunity applied unless the facts showed a constitutional violation of a clearly established right.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Adam Keup v. Nicholas Palmer
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

qualified immunitypolice misconductfirst amendmentcivil rightsappellate procedure

Practice areas

civil rightsconstitutional lawqualified immunityappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Palmer was entitled to qualified immunity on Keup's First Amendment retaliation claim when Palmer shot Keup during an unlawful-assembly dispersal operation.
  2. Whether firing pepper balls at Keup constituted a clearly established Fourth Amendment seizure or excessive force.
  3. Whether officers violated the Fourth Amendment by physically moving Keup behind police lines for medical treatment.

Holdings

  1. Palmer was entitled to qualified immunity on Keup's First Amendment claim because the undisputed facts did not support a reasonable inference that Keup's protected expression was the but-for cause of Palmer's use of force.
  2. Palmer was entitled to qualified immunity on Keup's claim that firing pepper balls at him constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure because the evidence showed that Palmer fired to disperse, rather than to apprehend or restrain, Keup, and the law did not clearly establish otherwise.
  3. Palmer was entitled to qualified immunity on Keup's claim that officers unreasonably seized him by grabbing him and moving him behind the skirmish line for medical care.

Key quotations

When Deputy Palmer fired at him, Keup was just standing there—whatever his motives and purpose might have been. (at 4)
What matters is whether “[t]he record demonstrates that [the officer] applied force to restrain” or to disperse. (at 5)
All told, we do not think that Deputy Palmer objectively manifested an intent to restrain Keup and so his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. (at 6)

Factual background

During a protest in Omaha, Nebraska, authorities declared an unlawful assembly and ordered the crowd to disperse. Deputy Palmer, positioned in a skirmish line and armed with a pepper ball gun, fired twice at Keup, who was standing on a sidewalk with a backpack containing camera equipment, striking him in the right eye and causing permanent vision loss. Palmer and other officers then moved Keup behind the police line for medical treatment, told him he was not under arrest, and permitted him to leave for further medical care.

Procedural history

During a protest, Deputy Palmer shot Keup in the eye with a pepper ball and officers moved him behind police lines for medical treatment. Keup sued Palmer and other defendants under § 1983. The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted Palmer summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…