SCOTUS Opens the Door to More Lawsuits Against Police, Declines to Shield Oil Companies from Climate Activists
In a unanimous decision that could increase legal exposure for law enforcement officers nationwide, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that courts must consider the entire chain of events leading up to the use of force—not just the moment an officer perceives a threat—when evaluating excessive force claims.
The case, originating in Texas, centers on the 2016 death of 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes during a traffic stop. Barnes was driving his girlfriend’s rental car, which had outstanding toll violations. Officer Roberto Felix Jr. stopped the vehicle and requested Barnes’ license and insurance. Moments later, the vehicle lurched forward. Felix jumped onto the car’s door sill and fired into the vehicle, killing Barnes.
The legal dispute revolved around whether courts should focus only on the split-second when Officer Felix feared for his safety—or consider the broader series of events during the stop. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court rejected the narrow "moment of threat" standard, directing lower courts to evaluate the “totality of the circumstances.”
“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett, penned a concurring opinion.
This expanded framework for evaluating police use of force could pave the way for a wave of lawsuits, placing frontline officers in even greater legal jeopardy, particularly as law enforcement continues to face relentless political attacks and recruitment crises under progressive leadership.
SCOTUS Leaves Oil Giants to Face Climate Lawsuits Alone
In sharp contrast, the Court declined to intervene in another key case—this time refusing to hear challenges by oil companies facing lawsuits from blue states and cities over so-called climate damages.
The suits, backed by deep-pocketed progressive donors, aim to extract massive payouts from energy producers, effectively taxing oil usage through litigation rather than legislation. If successful, these cases could result in billions in penalties, costs that would inevitably be passed on to American families at the pump and in their utility bills.
“Consumers are not helped by these cases, which seek to wipe products from store shelves and funnel money to left-wing causes,” said O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers.
Skinner warned that allowing these suits to proceed unchecked could result in courts imposing sweeping environmental policies akin to the failed Green New Deal, bypassing Congress entirely.
“These lawsuits are simply a backdoor attempt to regulate America’s energy industry through the judiciary,” he said. “The only way for consumers not to be sacrificed before the left-wing onslaught is continued legal resistance.”
The Supreme Court had previously requested a brief from Biden’s Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, who unsurprisingly urged the Court to let the lawsuits proceed in state courts, a more favorable venue for climate activists.
Conservative legal scholars fear that by punting the issue, the Court has invited copycat suits from progressive jurisdictions, potentially turning judges into de facto energy czars.
“I hope that the Court will hear the issue someday, for the sake of constitutional accountability and the public interest,” said Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute.