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
April 22, 2026

CAC Release: Targeting Civil Rights Groups Leaves All Americans Less Safe

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to yesterday’s indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Constitutional...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
April 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Whether Investor Harm Is a Prerequisite to an Award of Disgorgement in a Civil Action Brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s oral argument at the Supreme Court in Sripetch v. Securities...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
April 15, 2026

Court to contemplate SEC’s use of disgorgement in securities enforcement

SCOTUSBlog
CAC's amici brief on behalf of legal scholars in Sripetch v. SEC was featured in SCOTUSblog. Read more...
Rule of Law
April 14, 2026

CAC Release: Failing to Enforce Subpoena of Bondi is Failing the American People

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to the unexplained cancellation of Pam Bondi’s scheduled deposition, Constitutional...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
April 2, 2026

Consumer Groups Back SEC In High Court Disgorgement Row

Law360
CAC Legal Fellow Simon Chin discussed CAC's amici brief on behalf of legal scholars in Sripetch...
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission

In Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court is considering whether a showing of pecuniary harm to investors is a prerequisite to an award of disgorgement in a civil action brought by the...