To most Americans, a unanimous Supreme Court victory seems like the ultimate triumph of justice. But to the Barnes family, that couldn’t be further from the truth. Nearly a decade after a traffic stop in Houston resulted in the death of Ashtian Barnes, his grieving family still has no closure, thanks to a lower court that appears intent on blocking the courthouse doors.
The facts of this tragedy are stark. In 2016, Ashtian Barnes was killed by Harris County Deputy Constable Roberto Felix while driving his girlfriend’s rental car following a traffic stop over an unpaid toll violation. As Barnes tried to flee, Felix jumped onto the moving vehicle and blindly opened fire, killing Barnes instantly. Barnes’ mother sued, seeking to vindicate her son’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force.
The initial hurdle was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which last year applied the narrow “moment of threat” test. This doctrine called for judges and juries to focus only on the precise second an officer felt endangered, ignoring the chain of events that led to the shooting—including the nature of the offense and everything that transpired before the incident.
Last spring, the tide seemed to turn. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck a decisive blow to this deeply flawed doctrine, holding that a full review of the “totality of the circumstances”—including the nature of the offense and the events leading up to the incident—is required. It was a crucial step forward for police accountability, one that should have finally paved the path to justice.
But oftentimes, a Supreme Court victory doesn’t guarantee justice; it’s often just the first hurdle on a path dotted with obstacles. On remand, the Fifth Circuit—of its own volition and without any new briefing—found that no genuine dispute of material fact existed and granted summary judgment for the officer.
In other words, the Fifth Circuit held that the question of whether Constable Felix’s use of force was reasonable under the circumstances shouldn’t reach a jury. The panel’s decision stands in stark contrast to its own case law, well-established Supreme Court precedent, and the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment. Appallingly, the panel disavowed these critical safeguards, illuminating a world in which law enforcement officers can employ deadly force against anyone who flees a traffic stop no matter how trivial the offense and regardless of whether they posed a genuine danger to the officer or the public.
It’s as if the Supreme Court removed the outer fence, but the Barnes family still had to cross a moat filled with crocodiles before reaching a jury. This outcome is more than a judicial disappointment for one distraught family: it’s a profound assault on our constitutional framework.
The Framers intended for juries—composed of ordinary citizens—to adjudicate disputes between citizens and their government. Assessing whether a police officer’s use of force was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances is precisely the type of judgment call the Framers tasked jurors to make. The Seventh Amendment codifies this guarantee in civil cases for a reason: citizen juries were conceived as a critical check on government power.
There was no doubt that a genuine dispute of material fact existed regarding whether Deputy Felix’s use of force was reasonable. The strongest proof of this lies in the panel’s own contradictions: One of the judges initially indicated that an assessment of the “totality of the circumstances” would merit a finding that Felix used excessive force. Yet the same judge later reversed course, deciding that no genuine dispute of fact exists before granting summary judgment to the constable. When the same judge assesses identical facts in diametrically opposed ways within consecutive years, the existence of a true factual conflict is undeniable. This grant of summary judgment strips citizens of their constitutionally assigned role and guts the mechanism Congress designed to ensure official accountability under civil rights law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Barnes v. Felix was a vital vindication of long-standing guardrails on policing. The Fifth Circuit’s subsequent holding, however, reveals just how fragile and elusive the pursuit of justice can be. The unfortunate reality is that too many judicial doors are slammed shut, denying accountability and insulating government actors from the scrutiny and accountability our Constitution demands.
The Barnes family recently asked the Fifth Circuit to reconsider its decision. Unfortunately, the Court swiftly declined to rehear the case, leaving the Barnes family struggling to stay afloat.