Supreme Court Broadens ‘Unreasonable Force’ Claims Against Police Officers
In a unanimous ruling Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court took a major step toward clarifying how claims of excessive force against police officers are evaluated, reaffirming a legal approach that takes into account the entirety of an officer’s encounter—not just the split-second moment of perceived threat.
The 9-0 decision comes from a 2016 case out of Texas, where 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes was shot and killed by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. during a routine traffic stop. Barnes had been driving his girlfriend’s rental car, which had outstanding toll violations, when he was pulled over. When the vehicle began moving as Felix stood on the door sill, the officer fired two shots, fatally striking Barnes.
At issue was whether the court should assess the officer’s actions solely based on the final moment when he feared for his safety or evaluate the broader chain of events leading up to the shooting. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan emphasized the importance of context.
“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” Kagan stated.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also penned a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett, further solidifying the Court’s message that law enforcement accountability must reflect the full picture—not isolated snapshots.
The decision is a crucial affirmation of due process and responsible policing, ensuring that courts don’t ignore the high-stakes complexity that officers face on the ground. Conservatives have long advocated for judicial clarity on police use-of-force standards, particularly amid ongoing attempts by the radical left to undermine law enforcement through selective prosecution and politically motivated narratives.
In a separate but equally significant development, the Supreme Court earlier this week declined to take up two challenges brought by energy-producing states and oil companies facing an onslaught of climate change lawsuits. The decision allows lawsuits against major fossil fuel companies—spearheaded by Democrat-controlled state and local governments—to proceed in state courts.
Critics argue that these lawsuits are not about justice or environmental protection, but about using litigation as a backdoor to impose left-wing energy policies rejected by the American people.
“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, a consumer watchdog group.
Skinner added: “Here is hoping the targets of these lawsuits continue to fight these cases, as they have consistently prevailed in the final stages of review, and that is the only way for consumers not to be sacrificed before the left-wing onslaught here.”
The Alliance for Consumers previously released a report exposing a vast network of dark money behind the lawsuits—pointing to progressive nonprofits bankrolled by undisclosed donors working in tandem to reshape America’s energy landscape through judicial activism.
Adam White, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, echoed concerns about judicial overreach replacing the will of the voters. “I hope that the Court will hear the issue someday, for the sake of constitutional accountability and the public interest,” White said.
According to experts, if these lawsuits succeed, energy producers may face billions in penalties—costs that would inevitably be passed on to working Americans through higher gas prices, energy bills, and reduced domestic production. Worse still, the endgame is clear: climate activists hope to use these court victories to implement elements of the Green New Deal through litigation rather than legislation.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, previously advised the Court to let the lawsuits proceed at the state level, demonstrating once again the current administration’s hostility toward American energy independence and its willingness to bypass Congress in pursuit of an extremist climate agenda.
President Donald Trump has long criticized these kinds of legal maneuvers, defending American industry and energy workers against what he calls “environmental socialism” disguised as legal reform.
With the 2024 election looming and energy costs continuing to rise, the battle between constitutional governance and activist rule-by-lawsuit is far from over.