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 28, 2026

Congressional Democrats argue in filing that White House ballroom construction shouldn’t proceed without Congress’ consent

CBS News
CAC's brief on behalf of Members of Congress opposing construction on Trump's unconstitutional ballroom were...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service

In National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether President Trump can unilaterally demolish the White House’s East Wing and build a...
Rule of Law
May 20, 2026

Over 440 Civil Rights, Faith, and Labor Organizations Call Department of Justice Indictment of Southern Poverty Law Center a “Naked Attempt to Weaponize the the Criminal Justice System to Silence Speech”

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
CAC joined over 440 civil rights, faith, and labor organizations calling the Department of Justice...
Rule of Law
May 17, 2026

New lawsuit filed by a group of Miami residents seeks to block “outrageous” Trump Presidential Library

CBS News
Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump, the lawsuit brought by the Constitutional Accountability Center and the law...
Rule of Law
May 15, 2026

DeSantis dismisses validity of new Trump library lawsuit during Miami appearance

Miami Herald
Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump, the lawsuit brought by the Constitutional Accountability Center and the law...
Rule of Law
May 17, 2026

Lawsuit challenges proposed Trump Presidential Library site in downtown Miami

Local 10 News
Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump, the lawsuit brought by the Constitutional Accountability Center and the law...