subordinate liability and supervisory liability. Individuals who aid in the implementation of an adverse action at the instructions of a superi- or will be liable along with their superior if they knew or should have known that the adverse action was unlawful. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 393 (“[Rejecting prison officers’ argument that ‘since they did not have the authority to alter the [prisoner’s security] classification, any consequence of that status cannot be their responsibility.’ ” (quoting Villanueva v. George, 659 F.2d 851, 854 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc))). Because this stems from principles of agency, the plaintiff must establish that the superi- or intended to retaliate but only that the subordinate knowingly participated in the acts of the superior. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 393 (<HOLDING>). Superiors and supervisors, on the other hand,
holding that evidence of a cursory investigation can give rise to an inference of an unlawful motive holding that puffing does not give rise to fraud liability under mississippi law holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action holding that a violation of a state statute regarding the swearing of criminal complaints does not give rise to constitutional liability holding a subordinates knowing participation in a superiors retaliatory conduct sufficient to give rise to liability of subordinate who merely executed the unlawful orders