Rule of Law

RELEASE: Justices Appear Poised to Reject Rule that Artificially Shields Police from Accountability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Barnes v. Felix, a case in which the Court is considering whether a police officer’s use of deadly force should be judged in light of all the circumstances of the incident, or whether courts should ignore unreasonable officer conduct that leads to deadly incidents by adopting a “moment of threat” rule, Constitutional Accountability Center Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle issued the following reaction:

After today’s argument, it appears the Court is likely headed toward a narrow but important victory for police accountability in this case—a rejection of the “moment of threat” rule applied by the court below. That rule artificially insulates police officers from liability by permitting courts to consider only the last few seconds of a deadly encounter between police and civilians, placing out of bounds any consideration of the officer’s prior actions leading up to this moment, no matter how unreasonable. Across the board, Justices appeared to acknowledge that the “moment of threat” rule is incompatible with precedent that requires examining all the circumstances of a police encounter when evaluating whether an officer used excessive force. There appeared to be wide consensus that the Court should reject this artificial rule and go no further—a small but significant step toward greater accountability for officers who violate the Fourth Amendment by inflicting unnecessary violence.

 

CAC Douglas T. Kendall Fellow Nargis Aslami added this reaction:

 

As we argued in our amicus brief, the “moment of threat” rule is at odds with the Constitution’s text and history. Law enforcement officers today are granted a staggering level of discretionary stop-and-arrest powers, far beyond what the Founders imagined when the Fourth Amendment was ratified. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to curb excessive police discretion and deter police violence. The “moment of threat” rule frustrates those goals, unduly expands the degree of deference granted to officers, and further undermines police accountability.

 

##

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security

In DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally reshape the federal government through...
Rule of Law
July 10, 2026

July Newsletter: The Legacy of the Declaration of Independence Belongs to We the People

Rule of Law
July 7, 2026

CAC Release: DOJ Under Todd Blanche Fails to Disclose Epstein Files (Again)

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to the Trump administration’s failure to disclose the Epstein files...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
July 4, 2026

Why Would President Trump Want to Celebrate the Declaration of Independence?

Common Dreams
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes wrote an op-ed for Common Dreams explaining the similarities between...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
June 29, 2026

The Supreme Court is ‘Unquestionably an Ideological Court’ Says Wydra

Bloomberg TV
CAC President Elizabeth Wydra joined Bloomberg's Balance of Power to discuss the end of the...