Jan 31, 2025 Story by: Editor
The U.S. Supreme Court signaled that it may make it easier for individuals to challenge police officers’ use of deadly force. The case under review involves the fatal shooting of an unarmed Black man during a routine traffic stop in Texas.
Ashtian Barnes was fatally shot in 2016 by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. after being pulled over outside Houston while driving a rental car registered to his girlfriend, which had unpaid toll fees.
During the stop, Barnes attempted to drive away, prompting Felix to step onto the vehicle’s driver-side door sill and fire two shots, striking Barnes in the head. The entire incident, lasting less than three minutes, was captured on the officer’s dashboard camera.
The key legal question before the Supreme Court is whether courts should evaluate only the moment of immediate threat or consider the entire sequence of events leading up to the use of deadly force.
Justices across ideological lines seemed to agree with Barnes’s mother, Janice Hughes, that lower courts should adopt a broader perspective when reviewing such cases.
“You have to look at the whole picture, not just the two seconds” when the officer is on the car, said Nathaniel Zelinsky, an attorney representing Hughes. Both Hughes and Officer Felix were present in the courtroom during the proceedings.
Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a conservative, suggested that the Supreme Court might send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit with instructions to consider a wider range of circumstances leading to Barnes’s death.
Possible Implications of the Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its decision by the end of June. A ruling in favor of Barnes’s mother could expand the type of evidence courts must consider when individuals bring excessive-force claims against law enforcement. However, even if the ruling broadens the scope of review, claims against officers may still face challenges due to the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields many officers from civil liability.
In this case, the 5th Circuit upheld a lower court’s finding that Felix’s actions were reasonable under the current standard. However, one of the judges on the panel urged the Supreme Court to clarify how courts nationwide should determine the constitutionality of deadly force.
Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham expressed concern in a separate opinion, stating, “A routine traffic stop has again ended in the death of an unarmed black man, and again we cloak a police officer with qualified immunity, shielding his liability.” He criticized the narrow standard applied by the 5th Circuit, which focuses only on “the precise millisecond at which an officer deploys deadly force.”
That approach, he wrote, forces courts to ignore “the reality of the role the officers played in bringing about the conditions said to necessitate deadly force.”
Examining the Fourth Amendment and Use of Force
The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and limits law enforcement’s use of excessive force. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that deadly force is only justified if an officer reasonably believes that a suspect poses an imminent threat to others or to the officer.
Barnes’s mother sued both Felix and Harris County, Texas, arguing that the use of deadly force violated her son’s constitutional rights.
A lower court ruled in Felix’s favor, determining that the officer acted reasonably given Barnes’s refusal to exit the car and his sudden attempt to drive away on a busy toll road.
Lawyers for Hughes, in their appeal to the Supreme Court, argued that courts should consider Felix’s actions leading up to the shooting, particularly his decision to step onto the car’s side, which they say “unreasonably placed himself into danger in the preceding second.”
Defense and Concerns Over Police Training
Luke McCloud, representing Felix, defended the officer’s actions, stating that he “believed his life was in danger” as he clung to the moving car. McCloud cautioned against second-guessing officers’ split-second decisions and warned that broadening the review process could complicate police training.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh focused on these concerns, questioning the potential impact of the ruling on officers across the country.
“What’s an officer supposed to do when, at a traffic stop, someone pulls away? Just let him go?” Kavanaugh asked.
Several organizations, including the Cato Institute and criminal justice reform advocates, filed court briefs supporting Barnes’s position. They argued that the 5th Circuit’s narrow test “frustrates accountability and contributes to an overreliance on the use of force by police, thereby undermining public confidence in law enforcement.”
Government’s Stance and Final Arguments
Before former President Donald Trump took office, the Biden administration had taken a middle-ground approach to the case, which the Justice Department continued to support in Wednesday’s arguments.
Government attorney Zoe Jacoby stated that while courts should defer to officers’ split-second judgments, they should also consider those actions in light of the full circumstances surrounding the incident. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case could set a new precedent for how excessive force cases are evaluated, potentially reshaping legal standards for police accountability nationwide. Source: Washington Post
