▁in ▁ess ence , ▁a ▁case ▁in ▁which ▁clearly ▁established ▁law ▁meets ▁clearly ▁out rage ous ▁conduct ." ▁He ▁disag re ed ▁that ▁the ▁un clar ity ▁of ▁the ▁law ▁was ▁shown ▁by ▁the ▁various ▁Cour ts ▁of ▁App e als ▁that ▁have ▁adopted ▁" se em ingly ▁diver gent ▁views " ▁about ▁T . ▁L . ▁O .’ s ▁application ▁to ▁strip ▁searches : ▁" the ▁clar ity ▁of ▁a ▁well - est ab lished ▁right ▁should ▁not ▁depend ▁on ▁whether ▁jur ists ▁have ▁mis read ▁our ▁preced ents ." ▁" And ▁while ▁our ▁cases ▁have ▁previously ▁noted ▁the ▁“ d iver gence ▁of ▁views ” ▁among ▁courts ▁in ▁dec iding ▁whether ▁to ▁extend ▁qualified ▁imm unity , ▁we ▁have ▁re lied ▁on ▁that ▁consideration ▁only ▁to ▁spare ▁officials ▁from ▁having ▁“ ▁‘ to ▁predict ▁the ▁future ▁course ▁of ▁constitution al ▁law [ .] ’ ▁ ”. ▁In ▁this ▁case , ▁by ▁contrast , ▁we ▁chart ▁no ▁new ▁constitution al ▁path . ▁We ▁merely ▁decide ▁whether ▁the ▁decision ▁to ▁strip ▁search ▁Sav ana ▁Red ding , ▁on ▁these ▁facts , ▁was ▁prohib ited ▁under ▁T . ▁L . ▁O . ▁ ▁Our ▁conclusion ▁leaves ▁the ▁boundaries ▁of ▁the ▁law ▁und ist urbed ." ▁ ▁In ▁a ▁separate ▁opinion , ▁Justice ▁G ins burg ▁further ▁elabor ated ▁on ▁why ▁she ▁thought ▁qualified ▁imm unity ▁was ▁in app ropri ate ▁in ▁this ▁case : ▁In ▁contrast ▁to ▁T . ▁L . ▁O ., ▁where ▁a ▁teacher ▁discovered ▁a ▁student ▁sm oking ▁in ▁the ▁lav