By Morghan Manuel
Howard University News Service
Washington, D.C. – Ashtian Barnes died on the side of a highway in Houston, Texas, after an officer shot and killed him during a routine traffic stop on April 28, 2016. His mother, Janice Hughes Barnes, sued the officer, arguing that his use of deadly force was unjustified and violated Ashtian’s constitutional rights.
Barnes lost, but her case made it to U.S. Supreme Court, where it could have a major impact on police accountability and standards on the use of excessive force.
Justices recently heard arguments from both sides of Barnes v. Felix and will issue an opinion by the end of June. In the meantime, they are reviewing the case to decide who is right — the mother or the officer, Harris County Sheriff’s Deputy Roberto Felix.
Lower courts ruled in favor of Felix, applying the “moment of the threat” doctrine, which evaluates an officer’s actions only at the precise moment force was used, not considering events leading up to it.
“This kind of legal amnesia is incompatible with precedent, conflicts with common law and defies common sense,” Attorney Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky argued on Barnes’ behalf.
Barnes v. Felix is a Fourth Amendment excessive force case centered on the moment of the threat doctrine, which determines how courts assess the reasonableness of police use of force. “When an officer doing his duty confronts a threat to his safety or the safety of others, it is reasonable for that officer to use force to end that threat,” Charles Luther McCloud stated in his opening oral argument for Felix. “That’s the conclusion this court has consistently reached, and that’s what the 5th Circuit correctly held.”
McCloud explained that Felix’s use of force was reasonable cause, due to his belief that he was in imminent danger.
Felix pulled Barnes over for a minor traffic violation – specifically, failure to pay tolls — but the situation quickly escalated. According to reports and video footage, Barnes attempted to flee in the rental car, prompting Felix to fire multiple shots, killing him. Felix later claimed he acted in self-defense, arguing that Barnes’ actions posed an immediate threat.
This case is significant because it addresses a longstanding split among federal appeals courts. The 2nd, 4th, 5th and 8th Circuits use the moment of the threat standard. At the same time, the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th and D.C. Circuits apply the broader totality of the circumstances approach, which considers officers’ prior actions that may have escalated the situation.
The Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether the narrower or broader standard should apply nationwide in excessive force cases.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh questioned Zelinsky whether “it was reasonable for the officer to jump on the side of the car.” With this question in mind, it is important to review possible implications for police accountability and excessive force cases.
A ruling in favor of Felix (upholding the moment of the threat doctrine) would:
- Limit critical observation of an officer’s actions before using force.
- Make it harder for victims of police violence to bring successful lawsuits.
- Strengthen qualified immunity protections for officers.
A ruling in favor of Barnes (rejecting the moment of the threat doctrine) would:
- Expand judicial review of police actions before force is used.
- Allow courts to consider whether an officer’s conduct unnecessarily escalated a situation.
- Strengthen protections against excessive force, making it easier to hold officers accountable.
The National Police Association asks U.S. Supreme Court to Defend Officers Against the Perils of the Barnes v. Felix Case https://t.co/BFLCftsxiU
— National Police Association (@NatPoliceAssoc) January 8, 2025
Felix invoked qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields officers from civil lawsuits unless they violate “clearly established” law. Lower courts ruled in Felix’s favor, dismissing the case based on this doctrine. Barnes appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Felix’s conduct should be evaluated based on the entire sequence of events, not just the final moments before the shooting.
A community member shared her thoughts about the devastation that comes with potential incidents similar to this case.
“The case remains exactly what it was in 2016 — a Black man killed during a routine traffic stop where the officer is once again protected by qualified immunity,” Houston resident Kristin Edwards said.
“It’s devastating to see this happen time and time again, and it leaves me fearful knowing that my loved ones or I could one day encounter these same officers,” Edwards said.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, “What clarity would you want us to give?”
In response, McCloud stated that if the court accepts a legal rule holding officers responsible for creating dangerous situations, it should make clear that an officer cannot be blamed for mere carelessness.
“You would want to make clear that something like negligence alone is not going to be enough,” McCloud said. “It’s going to be an extraordinary case in which an officer’s creation of the danger is the basis for a Fourth Amendment claim.”
Only in rare and extreme cases, he added, should an officer’s actions before a violent encounter be used as the basis for a claim that their use of force violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable government actions.
Zelinsky presented five points for the court to consider before it issues an opinion:
- Check the Other Side’s Argument: He asks Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to listen to minutes 28-29 of the oral argument to hear exactly how the other side explained its position.
- Look at the Whole Story: He agrees with Justice Sonia Sotomayor that courts should consider everything an officer did leading up to using force, not just a split-second decision. He compares it to a case where an officer jumps in front of a moving car and then claims they had to shoot.
- Won’t Hurt Policing: Responding to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, he says officers are usually protected from lawsuits by qualified immunity and their cities covering legal costs. Plus, 22 former police chiefs believe ruling in favor of Barnes’ side would make policing better.
- Not Every Mistake Is a Lawsuit: He tells Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. that officers won’t get sued for every little mistake and that courts just need to consider the officer’s entire decision-making process, not just the final moments.
- Avoid a Dangerous Rule: He warns Justice Neil M. Gorsuch that if the court accepts the moment of the threat rule, it would allow officers to kill people fleeing from minor crimes, which would be a big and dangerous change in the law. He urges the court to reject that idea.
Morghan Manuel is a reporter for HUNewsService.com, specializing in courts.
