Docket 23-1239
Barnes
DecidedMay 15, 2025
9-0decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court rules police excessive-force cases must consider full circumstances, not just the final moment
Impact6/10
What it does
The Court unanimously struck down the Fifth Circuit's "moment-of-threat" rule, which had limited courts to examining only the instant an officer perceived danger when evaluating whether deadly force was constitutionally reasonable. Courts must now consider all relevant facts and circumstances across the full timeline of a police encounter — not just a narrow final window — when deciding excessive-force claims. The case was sent back to the lower courts to re-evaluate the shooting using this broader framework.
Who benefits
People who bring excessive-force lawsuits against law enforcement officers, particularly those whose cases arise in the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi), who previously had no legal avenue to present evidence about events leading up to the moment of a shooting.
Who is affected
Law enforcement officers and the government agencies that employ them, who can no longer rely on a rule that confined judicial review of a shooting to only the final seconds of an encounter, regardless of what happened before.
Practical impact
In the Fifth Circuit and nationwide, courts evaluating police excessive-force claims must now examine the full timeline of an encounter — including the reasons for a stop, how the officer and suspect interacted before any force was used, and any actions the officer took that may have shaped the situation. The specific case of Ashtian Barnes's shooting is sent back to lower courts, which must now consider all events during the traffic stop — including Officer Felix's decision to jump onto the moving car's doorsill — when assessing whether the shooting was constitutionally reasonable. The separate legal question of whether an officer's own role in creating a dangerous situation affects the reasonableness analysis remains open and unresolved.
Majority — Kagan
Joined by: Roberts, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, Barrett
The majority held that the Fourth Amendment's requirement of "objective reasonableness" in police use-of-force cases has always demanded a "totality of the circumstances" analysis — meaning courts must look at everything relevant, not just a frozen moment in time. The Court reasoned that earlier events in an encounter can directly shape how a reasonable officer would interpret and respond to later ones, and that cutting off that context distorts the analysis in either direction — it could make threatening conduct look innocent, or innocent conduct look threatening. The Court pointed to its prior ruling in Plumhoff v. Rickard, where the justification for a shooting depended heavily on what had happened during the preceding five-minute car chase, as proof that pre-shooting facts are often essential to the reasonableness inquiry. The Fifth Circuit's rule — which explicitly barred consideration of anything before the final two seconds of the encounter — was therefore irreconcilable with the Court's established framework. The Court declined to address the separate question of whether an officer who creates a dangerous situation through his own earlier actions loses some right to use force in response, leaving that issue for the lower courts on remand.
Constitutional question
Does the Fourth Amendment permit courts to evaluate a police officer's use of deadly force by looking only at the precise moment the officer perceived a threat — the so-called "moment-of-threat" rule — rather than the totality of all circumstances surrounding the encounter?
Precedent changed
The ruling narrows the Fifth Circuit's "moment-of-threat" doctrine established in cases such as Harris v. Serpas, 745 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 2014), and Rockwell v. Brown, 664 F.3d 985 (5th Cir. 2011), holding that doctrine inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent requiring a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.