Police Just Took a 9-0 Loss at the Supreme Court

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that lower courts cannot continue applying the so-called “moment of threat” rule when evaluating cases involving police use of deadly force. As attorney and legal commentator Steve Lehto explained on his podcast Lehto’s Law, the ruling in Barnes v. Felix represents a firm rejection of a narrow legal doctrine that has long shielded officers under the blanket of qualified immunity. While the Court didn’t mention “qualified immunity” by name, the implications are clear – officers will now face more scrutiny when force is used.

Lehto emphasized that this ruling doesn’t create new law. Instead, it reaffirms what the Supreme Court has been saying for years: courts must examine “the totality of the circumstances” when deciding if police actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The Case That Sparked the Ruling

The case involved a traffic stop in Texas where Officer Felix attempted to pull over a Toyota Corolla for outstanding toll violations. The driver, Mr. Barnes, complied at first but turned his vehicle back on after being asked to exit. As the car began to roll, Officer Felix jumped onto the doorsill and, with no clear view into the vehicle, fired two shots, killing Barnes. The entire incident from ignition to shots fired lasted about five seconds.

Lehto pointed out the absurdity of basing the entire legal review on a mere two-second window. “That’s not the totality of the circumstances,” he said. “That’s a blink.” Yet, that’s exactly what the Fifth Circuit did – limiting its judgment to those final seconds and ignoring everything leading up to the fatal shots.

Totality of Circumstances, Not Just a Snapshot

According to the Supreme Court, that narrow focus is incorrect. Justice Kagan, writing for the Court, explained that the Fourth Amendment requires a “careful attention to the facts and circumstances” of the entire encounter, not just the instant force was used. This means actions taken by the officer before the shooting, and even the context surrounding the initial stop, are relevant.

Steve Lehto praised the Court for stating this principle so clearly, even calling the opinion “refreshingly short” at just nine pages. “The word ‘totality’ means everything – not just the end, not just a sliver,” he noted. “And it’s amazing that some courts decided it meant just the two seconds before someone gets shot.”

Qualified Immunity Left Unnamed, but Not Untouched

Though the Supreme Court never used the term “qualified immunity” in the ruling, Lehto made clear that’s what’s at stake. In cases where plaintiffs sue police under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for alleged constitutional violations, qualified immunity often becomes the legal shield officers use to avoid liability. By narrowing the timeline of events under review, lower courts have often dismissed lawsuits, saying there was no time to reasonably second-guess the officer’s actions.

Lehto explained how this practice has harmed families seeking justice. In this case, Barnes’s mother sued on behalf of her son, arguing that Officer Felix used excessive force. But her case was dismissed based on the moment-of-threat logic. “That kind of reasoning makes it nearly impossible to hold anyone accountable,” Lehto said.

The Fifth Circuit’s Invented Rule

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s rebuke was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had created a rule that confined legal review to the “moment of threat.” The lower courts argued they were bound by circuit precedent, but as Lehto put it, “That precedent was never authorized by the Supreme Court.”

In fact, one appellate judge on the case even admitted the moment-of-threat rule conflicted with Supreme Court standards. That judge wrote a concurring opinion expressing concern, noting that the high court had repeatedly instructed lower courts to consider all facts, not just the milliseconds before a weapon is fired.

From Toll Violations to Deadly Force

Lehto highlighted just how trivial the original offense was: unpaid tolls. “Let’s not forget – this all started over tolls,” he said, pointing out the stark contrast between the offense and the outcome. The escalation, according to Lehto, wasn’t caused by Barnes fleeing or threatening anyone, but by Officer Felix choosing to jump onto a moving car and then firing without knowing what was happening inside.

“That’s not good police work – that’s reckless,” Lehto stated bluntly. And the court’s decision finally allows juries and judges to assess whether such officer-created danger factors into the use-of-force analysis.

What This Means Going Forward

The Supreme Court didn’t decide whether Officer Felix was ultimately right or wrong in using force. Instead, it sent the case back down for further review – but with a clear mandate: lower courts must now examine the entire encounter, not just a narrow sliver of time. This change could open the door for more lawsuits against officers where excessive force is claimed, especially in cases that were previously dismissed due to narrow time-frame reviews.

Lehto believes this ruling could have ripple effects. He compared it to a separate case involving police who went to the wrong house and fatally shot a homeowner. That case was also dismissed because courts focused only on the final moment, not the mistake that led to the confrontation.

Creating the Danger Shouldn’t Be Ignored

A key question that still hangs in the air is whether an officer’s own errors, such as jumping onto a moving car or going to the wrong address, can factor into the legal analysis of force. In this ruling, the Court avoided that issue, since it wasn’t raised in the lower courts. But Lehto noted it’s only a matter of time before that issue reaches the Supreme Court.

“If an officer creates the danger, they shouldn’t be able to use it as justification for deadly force,” Lehto argued. He gave a simple analogy: if someone pushes another person into a pool, they have a duty to help, not stand by. The same principle, he says, should apply in policing.

Courts Must Stop Inventing Their Own Rules

Perhaps the most important takeaway, according to Lehto, is that the Supreme Court is calling out lower courts for making up doctrines that contradict binding precedent. “This wasn’t a request – it was a correction,” he said. The Supreme Court made it crystal clear that the “moment of threat” rule is not the law of the land and never has been.

Lehto criticized the tendency of some circuit courts to bend precedent in favor of law enforcement. “That’s not how justice works,” he said. “Courts don’t get to rewrite the Constitution just because it makes things simpler.”

The Next Chapter Remains Unwritten

Now that the case is back in the hands of the lower courts, anything could happen. Lehto warned that even with a broader time frame, the same outcome is still possible. The court could still rule in favor of the officer, but at least now the analysis will have to consider all the facts.

“That’s what justice requires,” Lehto said. “Not just a snapshot, but the whole story.”

A Win for Accountability

In Lehto’s view, the Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes v. Felix is a meaningful step toward restoring balance in how police use of force cases are judged. While the ruling doesn’t eliminate qualified immunity or impose direct consequences on Officer Felix, it raises the standard for what courts must consider.

“This decision doesn’t fix everything,” Lehto said, “but it stops the bleeding. It tells courts, ‘You don’t get to cherry-pick seconds and ignore the bigger picture.’”

No More Legal Shortcutting

For years, critics of qualified immunity have warned that courts were letting officers off the hook by focusing too narrowly on the exact moment of a shooting, ignoring how police actions may have escalated situations unnecessarily. With this new ruling, the Supreme Court has made it clear: that era of legal shortcutting is over.

As Steve Lehto concluded, “This is the Court saying, in no uncertain terms – do your job, and do it right.”