WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the mother of a Black man killed following a routine traffic stop in Houston to pursue an excessive force claim against the police officer who shot him.
The justices faulted a lower court for focusing solely on the moment force was used and not the moments leading up to it.
"Today we reject that approach," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a unanimous court. "To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment."
Ashtian Barnes, 24, was killed in April 2016 when the vehicle he was driving started moving forward while he was speaking to the officer.
Roberto Felix Jr., a traffic enforcement officer with the Harris County Precinct 5 Constable’s Office, jumped on the car door sill when the vehicle moved and then shot Barnes twice. Barnes died at the scene.
The ruling means that a civil rights lawsuit filed by Barnes’ mother, Janice Hughes, can move forward for now. She claims Felix used excessive force in violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.
Adam Fomby, one of Hughes' lawyers, said the legal team was "deeply gratified by the Supreme Court's decision."
The ruling, he added, "reinforces the fundamental principle that constitutional accountability applies to law enforcement."
Lawyers for Felix had no immediate comment.
In ruling for Hughes, the court rejected what has been called the "moment of the threat doctrine," making it clear to courts around the country that events leading up to an officer's use of deadly force have to be considered when assessing a claim.
The court reaffirmed existing precedent that says the "totality of the circumstances" has to be taken into account.
"A court deciding a use-of-force case cannot review the totality of the circumstances if it has put on chronological blinders," Kagan wrote.
Although the decision was unanimous, it was narrow and left some issues unresolved. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by three other justices, pointing out the difficult, split-second decisions police officers have to make during traffic stops.
"In analyzing the reasonableness of an officer's conduct at a traffic stop ... courts must appreciate the extraordinary dangers and risks facing police officers and the community at large," he wrote.
Hughes still potentially faces an uphill battle as litigation continues.
Even if lower courts ultimately allow her case to move forward, it would not affect Felix’s ability to invoke the qualified immunity defense, which protects cops if it was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident that their actions were unlawful.
In a January interview with NBC News, Hughes said she was pursuing the case because she wants people to know that “my son was a victim.”
Five years after the death of George Floyd, another Black man killed by a police officer, “nobody’s policing the police,” she added.
Although lower courts ruled against Hughes, both a district court judge and a judge on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the moment of threat doctrine adopted by some courts that limits consideration of the moments leading up to the use of force was wrong and should be overturned.
Barnes also filed a separate claim against the police department, which is not directly at issue before the Supreme Court.
