Matthew Cavedon
In 2016, Ashtian Barnes was killed by Harris County, Texas, Deputy Constable Roberto Felix, following a traffic stop for unpaid tolls. As Barnes apparently tried to drive away, Felix jumped onto the moving car and indiscriminately opened fire, killing Barnes instantly.
The Fifth Circuit initially sided with Felix, applying its narrow “moment of threat” test that only focused on whether the officer was in danger at the precise second he fired his weapon. Last spring, the Supreme Court unanimously held 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 relevant to determining the reasonableness of force. Cato urged the Court to reach this result in an amicus brief.
Despite this commendable ruling, on remand, the Fifth Circuit—of its own volition and without any briefing—found that no genuine dispute of material fact existed and granted summary judgment for Felix. Nearly a decade after Barnes’s tragic death, his grieving family is still no closer to justice.
The Barnes family has now asked the Fifth Circuit to reconsider its latest decision. Cato filed an amicus brief in support of their petition.
Our brief argues that the Framers intended for juries—comprised of ordinary Americans—to adjudicate disputes between citizens and their government. Assessing whether a police officer’s use of force was reasonable under the circumstances is precisely the type of judgment call the Framers tasked jurors to make. The Court should vacate the panel’s opinion and remand the case to the district court.