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. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Nebraska v. EPA

In Nebraska v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering the legality of the EPA’s latest motor vehicle emissions standards. 
Rule of Law
January 20, 2025

RELEASE: Trump’s Shameful Pardons and Commutations Cannot Change the Facts of January 6th

WASHINGTON, DC – Upon reports that President Donald Trump has issued pardons and commutations for individuals...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

In Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, the Supreme Court is considering whether a federal law that requires the FCC to establish programs making internet access more affordable is unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. 
Rule of Law
January 10, 2025

TV (C-SPAN): Elizabeth Wydra on Trump Sentencing in New York Hush Money Case

C-SPAN
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n7g_TJRor4[/embed] Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra talked about President-elect Trump's sentencing in his New York...
Rule of Law
January 14, 2025

Civil Rights-Era Abuses Could Return to the FBI Under Kash Patel | Opinion

Newsweek
With the recent start of the 119th Congress and the imminent beginning of a second Trump administration,...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
January 10, 2025

CAC (Bloomberg): CAC’s Wydra Joins Bloomberg’s Balance of Power to Discuss TikTok Supreme Court Case

Bloomberg TV