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
May 16, 2025

CAC Release: At the D.C. Circuit, Everyone Agrees that the Constitution Does Not Permit the President to Unilaterally Shutter the CFPB

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District...
Rule of Law
May 16, 2025

CAC Release: Skepticism About Trump Administration’s Power Grab at Labor Rights Agencies at D.C. Circuit Argument This Morning

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District...
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

J. Doe 4 v. Musk

In J. Doe 4 v. Musk, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland is considering whether Elon Musk’s role in DOGE violates the Appointments Clause and the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Rule of Law
May 9, 2025

Dodd-Frank Authors Join Warren, Waters to Challenge CFPB Firings

Bloomberg Law
Top Democrats, Dodd-Frank namesakes cite separation of powers Amicus brief highlights CFPB’s 2008 financial crisis...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought

In National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are...
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump

In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is considering whether the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally reorganize the federal government are constitutional...