In the 1997 case of Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government officials could not be granted qualified immunity in civil rights cases simply because a plaintiff's claim is based on circumstantial evidence. The case involved Crawford-El, a prison inmate who accused Britton, a corrections officer, of intentionally misdirecting his personal belongings out of malice for his litigiousness against the prison system. Lower courts had dismissed Crawford-El’s claims due to lack of direct evidence and granted Britton qualified immunity - protection from individual liability for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity unless their behavior violated "clearly established" federal law or constitutional rights an average person would know about. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that it was inappropriate to change standard rules around evidence in civil-rights cases involving public officials.

In the dissenting opinion for Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, argued that the majority's decision to eliminate the requirement of direct evidence in public official liability cases would lead to an increase in frivolous lawsuits against these officials. They contended that this could potentially deter individuals from serving as public officials due to fear of litigation. The dissenters believed that a higher standard of proof should be required when suing public officials for alleged violations of constitutional rights; otherwise it opens up potential abuse and misuse of judicial resources on claims with little factual basis. They also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation regarding qualified immunity protection for government officials performing discretionary functions, arguing it was too broad and inconsistent with previous rulings.