{"id":105239,"date":"2025-01-28T08:49:48","date_gmt":"2025-01-28T16:49:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=105239"},"modified":"2026-09-16T07:19:50","modified_gmt":"2026-09-16T14:19:50","slug":"breaking-scotus-news-barnes-v-felix-and-police-created-use-of-force","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=105239","title":{"rendered":"Breaking SCOTUS News! Barnes v. Felix and Police Created Use of Force"},"content":{"rendered":"

Editor\u2019s note:<\/strong> This was written in January 2025, after the oral argument in Barnes v. Felix but before the decision came down. It is a prediction of how the Court would rule, and it reads in the future tense throughout. The Supreme Court has since decided the case. For what the Court actually held, read Barnes v. Felix legal update<\/a>. This analysis is left up as published, as a record of where the argument stood at the time.<\/em><\/p>\n

Dear Blue to Gold Followers:<\/p>\n

I wanted to provide an update and analysis on the oral argument in Barnes v. Felix<\/a>, a case raising an important question under the Fourth Amendment. To provide context, the case examines whether courts should apply the \u201cmoment of the threat\u201d doctrine when evaluating excessive force claims. Specifically, the question presented is this: Should courts limit their analysis of excessive force to the moments immediately preceding the use of force, or must they evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including any relevant pre-seizure conduct by the officer?<\/p>\n

What is the Supreme Court likely to do?<\/h2>\n

Having listened to the oral arguments, my sense is that the Supreme Court may issue a narrow ruling vacating the Fifth Circuit\u2019s judgment and remanding the case. This decision would likely emphasize that courts must assess the totality of the circumstances, not just the immediate moments preceding the application of deadly force.<\/p>\n

What did Felix argue about the moment of the threat doctrine?<\/h2>\n

Interestingly, Felix\u2019s position at oral argument was that the \u201cmoment of the threat\u201d doctrine is not a formally recognized standard, and that courts already consider the totality of the circumstances, but with an important caveat. Felix argued that courts should exclude pre-seizure conduct by officers that might be characterized as unwise or poorly executed. This nuanced position appeared to frustrate some Justices, particularly Justices Jackson and Sotomayor, who viewed it as an attempt to indirectly introduce an officer-created jeopardy standard, which is not the issue for which certiorari was granted.<\/p>\n

Justice Kavanaugh expressed pragmatic concerns about adopting Barnes\u2019s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, but his concerns seemed to deviate from the narrower legal issue at hand. Meanwhile, Justices Gorsuch, Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and likely Alito appeared focused on addressing only the question presented. Justice Sotomayor acknowledged the broader relevance of officer-created jeopardy, noting that it is a significant issue causing uncertainty in the lower courts, but emphasized that this case is not the appropriate vehicle to resolve it on the merits.<\/p>\n

Will the Court address officer-created jeopardy?<\/h2>\n

Given these dynamics, I anticipate a narrow, likely unanimous ruling authored by Justice Alito. Such a decision would clarify that the \u201cmoment of the threat\u201d doctrine is not a valid framework and that the appropriate standard is always the totality of the circumstances. However, the Court would likely make no comment on the broader issue of officer-created jeopardy. We may also see a concurrence in the judgment from Justice Sotomayor, addressing the importance of clarifying the officer-created jeopardy doctrine in a future case.<\/p>\n

In sum, while many in law enforcement were concerned about the potential implications of this case, the oral arguments suggest that the Court will not address officer-created jeopardy at this time. Instead, the ruling will likely reaffirm a broader, contextual approach to evaluating excessive force claims.<\/p>\n

I hope this helps bring you up to speed with this important case.<\/p>\n

Zach Miller
\nLegal Instructor<\/p>\n

Related from Blue to Gold<\/h2>\n