Today, in a 9-0 decision authored by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court in Barnes v. Felix held that the Fifth Circuit’s use of the “Moment of the Threat” Doctrine contravened the Court’s established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, vacated the lower court’s ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings in the Court of Appeals. Weil submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Institute for American Policing Reform in support of Petitioner.

The case arose out of a 2016 traffic stop in which Respondent Officer Roberto Felix, Jr. fatally shot Ashtian Barnes.  Barnes’ estate brought suit for violation of Barnes’ Fourth Amendment right against excessive force.  In affirming the district court’s dismissal of the case, the Fifth Circuit applied its “Moment of the Threat Doctrine”—rather than examining the totality of the circumstances—which requires a court to consider only the action that immediately precipitates an officer’s use of deadly force when deciding if excessive force occurred.  The Moment of the Threat Doctrine is also the prevailing test applied in the Fourth, Eighth, and Second Circuits. 

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, instructing the lower courts to examine whether Officer Felix had used excessive force against Barnes under the “totality of the circumstances.”  The Court’s holding was narrow, concluding only that the Moment of the Threat Doctrine is incompatible with the long-held totality of the circumstances analysis that the Court has consistently applied to Fourth Amendment excessive use of force claims, which requires evaluation of the full context of any given situation.  The Court expressed concern that the Moment of the Threat doctrine fails to properly frame the analysis of excessive use of force claims by forcing courts to put on “chronological blinders.” The Court concluded that considering the totality of the circumstances is the approach well-established by its precedent, and the Moment of the Threat Doctrine cannot be squared with that approach under the Fourth Amendment.  The Court also declined to consider whether or how the officer’s own creation of a dangerous situation factors into the reasonableness analysis, an issue Respondent had requested clarification of during oral argument of the case.

In a concurrence joined by Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Barrett, Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the majority’s conclusion to remand the case for proceedings in line with an analysis of the totality of the circumstances, and wrote separately to further discuss the dangers of traffic stops for police officers, particularly in circumstances similar to the case below, where the driver pulls away during a traffic stop. Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that courts must appreciate the extraordinary dangers police officers and the community face when analyzing the reasonableness of an officer’s conduct during a traffic stop.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the totality of circumstances analysis as the correct test for courts to apply when evaluating excessive use of force claims under the Fourth Amendment. The decision also broadens legal protections for civilians and allows for additional potential avenues for holding officers accountable for the decisions they make during encounters with the community.

The Weil team representing amicus included litigation partners Chantale Fiebig and Joshua Wesneski, retired partner Steven Reiss, associates Charlotte McFaddin and Gigi Scerbo, and former associate Stephanie Adamakos.