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 District of Columbia

Nemer v. Bondi

In Nemer v. Bondi, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether an Immigration Judge can invoke the protections of Title VII and the First Amendment after being removed by...
Rule of Law
May 7, 2026

Supreme Court yet to decide on Election Day, Trump firings

Roll Call
CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod and her fellow panelists at CAC's 13th Annual Home Stretch at...
Rule of Law
May 7, 2026

CAC Release: Arraignment of SPLC Yet Another Step in Trump Administration March Against American Rights and Freedoms

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to today’s arraignment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Constitutional...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
May 7, 2026

Bondi Corroded DOJ’s Integrity. Congress Must Now Demand Change

Bloomberg Law
CAC Vice President Praveen Frenandes and former DC Bar President Patrick McGlone co-authored an article...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Patrick McGlone
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Office of Management and Budget

In Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Office of Management and Budget, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether President Trump’s Office of Management and...
Rule of Law
April 25, 2026

The Chilling Message Behind Trump’s Attack On The SPLC

Huffington Post
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was interviewed by HuffPost about Trump's attacks on the Southern...