UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

No. 24-1325 _______________ DION HORTON; DAMON JONES; CRAIG BROWNLEE; RAHDNEE ODEN-PRITCHETT; TATE STANFORD; ELIJAH BRONAUGH, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Appellants v. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JILL RANGOS, in her official capacity; FRANK SCHERER, DIRECTOR OF ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE, in his official capacity; ANTHONY M. MARIANI, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDGE; KELLY BIGLEY, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDGE, in their official and individual capacities; CHAR- LENE CHRISTMAS, PROBATION HEARING OFFICER; ROBERT O’BRIEN, PROBATION HEARING OFFICER; STEPHEN ESSWEIN, PROBATION HEARING OFFICER; RENAWN HARRIS, PROBATION HEARING OFFICER, in their official and individual capacities; WARDEN OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL _______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01391) District Judge: Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan _______________

Argued: February 19, 2025

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, and BIBAS and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

(Filed: May 2, 2025) Bret Grote ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER P.O. Box 8654 Pittsburgh, PA 15221 Alec G. Karakatsanis [ARGUED] Leonard J. Laurenceau Sumayya Saleh CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20009 Counsel for Appellants

2 Michael Daley Nicole A. Feigenbaum [ARGUED] SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS 1515 Market Street Suite 1414 Philadelphia, PA 19102 J. Alfred Bacharach Dennis R. Biondo, Jr. ALLEGHENY COUNTY LAW DEPARTMENT 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard 3rd Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for Appellees Allison B. Frankel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM PROJECT 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Counsel for Amicus American Civil Liberties Union in Support of Appellants James P. Davy ALL RISE TRIAL & APPELLATE P.O. Box 15216 Philadelphia, PA 19125 Counsel for Amicus Probation and Parole Project in Support of Appellants

3 _______________

OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Probationers are different from arrestees. Someone who has only been arrested is presumed innocent; someone who has been convicted and is serving his sentence of probation is not. This difference is why the government owes probationers less process before revoking their conditional liberty. Even so, it must give probationers some process. Here, it has—but only in part. Plaintiffs are probationers who sued several county judges and officials for detaining them without first finding that detention was necessary to pre- vent them from fleeing or committing more crimes. Yet the Su- preme Court has already spelled out exactly what process they are due, and it does not include such a finding of necessity. So we will not recognize this novel due-process right. Still, we see material factual disputes about whether the county is following existing due-process rules for probationers. We will thus affirm in part and reverse in part the District Court’s summary judg- ment for the county. I. PROBATIONERS WERE HELD FOR MONTHS Probation lets convicted criminals free under certain condi- tions. This freedom gives probationers a limited constitutional liberty interest. So, before the government may change or take away this freedom, it must give them both (1) a preliminary hearing to decide whether there is probable cause to believe