> 1. Whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for arresting an individual based solely on speech parodying the government, so long as no case
has previously held the particular speech is protected.
> 2. Whether the Court should reconsider the doctrine of qualified immunity.
So, yay, it's basically a qualified immunity case, where the infringement in question is an unhappy local government office patently violating someone's First Amendment rights. (Sadly, not the first or last time this is going to happen.)
If you actually read the questions presented in the petition for writ of certiorari (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/238740/2022...), it's more anodyne:
> The questions presented are:
> 1. Whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for arresting an individual based solely on speech parodying the government, so long as no case has previously held the particular speech is protected.
> 2. Whether the Court should reconsider the doctrine of qualified immunity.
So, yay, it's basically a qualified immunity case, where the infringement in question is an unhappy local government office patently violating someone's First Amendment rights. (Sadly, not the first or last time this is going to happen.)