Civil Rights Update: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Kentucky Football Players’ Malicious Prosecution Claims
October 10, 2025: The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights case brought by five members of the University of Kentucky football team after a Lexington, Kentucky police officer initiated baseless criminal charges against them.
The five teammates, who are all Black, were physically assaulted and subjected to vicious racial slurs at a fraternity party on campus. A member of the fraternity then called the police to report the young men for an alleged burglary. The university cleared the teammates of wrongdoing - but the Lexington police department, despite having evidence that they were victims of a racist assault, charged them with burglary, attempted to get them indicted by a grand jury, and issued a press release containing the baseless allegations. The grand jury did not indict the teammates. Nonetheless, the whole ordeal was completely unnecessary and caused significant emotional and reputational harm to the young men.
The teammates sued the police officers involved and the Lexington government for federal malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, supervisory liability, failure to intervene, municipal liability, state-law malicious prosecution, and defamation.
The Sixth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the federal claims on the grounds that the teammates had failed to plead a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as needed to establish their malicious prosecution claims. They were at risk of imprisonment; arraigned and summoned to testify in the grand jury proceeding; subjected to damage to their reputations and emotional distress; had their phones confiscated and searched; and had to go through student misconduct hearings at school. But they were never physically detained, imprisoned, or otherwise held in government custody - which the Court ruled was required to establish a claim under the Fourth Amendment.
The Court said: “we are without doubt that the allegations contained in plaintiffs’ complaints are deeply troubling and, if true, reflect extremely poorly upon the state actors involved. But not every horrible occurrence is a constitutional violation and plaintiffs’ suffering cannot be appropriately framed as a “deprivation of liberty” under the Fourth Amendment as understood by this court and the Supreme Court.”
The case establishes a rule for federal malicious prosecution claims: under the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish a deprivation of their physical freedom, such as being arrested, imprisoned, required to post bail or bond, or placed under travel restrictions.