Supreme Court Rules for Woman Whose Son Was Killed by Police (1)

The US Supreme Court ruled for the mother of a Black man who was shot and killed by police, reviving her lawsuit that seeks to hold the Texas officer liable for his use of deadly force.

In a unanimous decision on Thursday, the justices said the US Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit used the wrong standard in assessing whether the officer’s actions were reasonable.

“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s opinion.

Janice Hughes Barnes alleges officer Roberto Felix and Harris County violated her son Ashtian Barnes’ Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure when Felix shot him during a routine traffic stop in 2016.

Felix argued his use of deadly force was justified at the moment he feared for his safety. The Fifth Circuit said it was bound by the “moment-of-threat” rule in assessing whether his use of deadly force was reasonable.

That rule requires asking only whether the officer was in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in his use of deadly force and any prior events aren’t relevant, the court said.

But Kagan said the proper inquiry is to look at the “totality of the circumstances,” which has no time limit.

“Of course, the situation at the precise time of the shooting will often be what matters most; it is, after all, the officer’s choice in that moment that is under review. But earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones,” she wrote.

The case was closely watched by civil rights advocates who feared a ruling for Felix would make it harder to hold police officers responsible when they kill people at a time of persistent racial justice issues in policing.

In his concurring opinion, Fifth Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham described the case as another routine traffic stop that ended in the death of an unarmed Black man. “And again we cloak a police officer with qualified immunity, shielding his liability,” he said.

The Supreme Court didn’t address whether or how an officer’s own “creation of a dangerous situation” factors into the reasonableness analysis. Police footage of the traffic stop showed Ashtian Barnes tried to drive off while Felix was partially in the vehicle. Barnes had argued it’s unreasonable for an officer to jump onto a moving vehicle and then shoot the driver.

But Kagan said that issue wasn’t before the court.

“The question presented to us was one of timing alone: whether to look only at the encounter’s final two seconds, or also to consider earlier events serving to put those seconds in context,” she said. “With that matter resolved, we return everything else to the courts below. It is for them now to consider the reasonableness of the shooting, using the lengthier timeframe we have prescribed.”

In a concurring opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he agreed the officer’s actions during the traffic stop in this case should be assessed based on the totality of the circumstances. Kavanaugh said he wrote separately to add a few points about how dangerous it is when drivers pull away during a traffic stop and how they require police to make life or death decisions to protect the public.

“In analyzing the reasonableness of an officer’s conduct at a traffic stop, particularly traffic stops where the driver has suddenly pulled away, courts must appreciate the extraordinary dangers and risks facing police officers and the community at large,” he said.

The case is Barnes v. Felix, U.S., No. 23-1239.