Too long, didn’t read: Despite significant media attention, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Barnes v. Felix does not bring any significant legal changes to the Sixth (Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan) or Seventh (Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin) Circuits.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous May 15, 2025, ruling in Barnes v. Felix clarifies how federal courts analyze use-of-force claims under Section 1983. The decision ends a circuit split by rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s “moment-of-threat” doctrine. Instead, it adopts the “totality of the circumstances” approach used by the Sixth (Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan) and Seventh (Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin) Circuits.
What happened and why the Supreme Court reviewed this case
The underlying case: In 2016, Houston Officer Roberto Felix Jr. fatally shot Ashtian Barnes during a traffic stop for toll violations. Felix ordered Barnes out of his rented car, drew his gun, and, as the car rolled forward, jumped onto the doorsill and fired. Barnes died within seconds of the three-minute encounter.
Janice Hughes Barnes, Ashtian’s mother, sued Felix in 2017 under Section 1983, claiming a Fourth Amendment violation for excessive force. The district court sided with Felix, citing the Fifth Circuit’s “moment-of-threat” doctrine, which focused only on the instant the car moved. The Fifth Circuit upheld this in 2024.
The law at issue: The “moment-of-threat” doctrine, used by the Fifth and a few other circuits, limited analysis to the seconds before force was used—here, the two seconds when the car rolled. This clashed with the Sixth and Seventh Circuits’ approach, which examines all circumstances, like the officer’s actions leading up to the incident.
The Supreme Court took the case to resolve this split.
Why the Court unanimously rejected the “moment-of-threat” doctrine
Justice Elena Kagan’s unanimous opinion threw out the “moment-of-threat” doctrine. It improperly narrowed the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness test, set by Graham v. Connor. Courts must consider the totality of the circumstances—events before, during, and after the force—without strict time limits.
The Court stressed that the moment of force often matters most but can’t be isolated. The “moment-of-threat” doctrine ignored context, defying precedent. So, it’s gone. All circuits must now use the broader approach already used in the Sixth and Seventh Circuits.
The unresolved issue: “officer created danger”
Notably, the Court didn’t address whether an officer’s actions—like drawing a gun too soon or escalating a situation—makes their force per se unreasonable. This “officer-created danger” issue has come up in recent cases, but was not addressed specifically in this appeal, so the Court declined to opine on that issue. Currently, the Sixth and Seventh have rejected any “per se” rules on officer created danger but factor it into the traditional totality of the circumstances approach.
What’s next?
For the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, it’s business as usual. Their approach is now the national standard. Other circuits, like the Fifth, must adapt, potentially leading to tougher scrutiny of police conduct. The “officer-created danger” question looms, promising future battles.
