GIFFORDS Law Center and Brady File Supreme Court Amicus Brief: Lack of Accountability for Unreasonable Police Violence Erodes Community Trust, Threatens Public Safety
Leading gun violence prevention advocates argue that Supreme Court case Barnes v. Felix has serious implications for gun violence prevention and racial justice
WASHINGTON — Today, the GIFFORDS Law Center and Brady: United Against Gun Violence filed an amicus brief in Barnes v. Felix, the U.S. Supreme Court case. The case concerns the fatal police shooting of Ashtian Barnes, a 24-year-old Black man, during a “routine” traffic stop prompted by unpaid toll violations, for which he was not responsible. In the brief, Brady and GIFFORDS Law Center urge the Supreme Court to reject a doctrine that will result in shielding police officers from accountability when they unreasonably use deadly force against civilians.
Failing to hold officers accountable for excessive force perpetuates a dangerous cycle of violence: when unjustified police violence ruptures community trust in law enforcement, it leads to decreased community cooperation with police and less effective policing. This in turn leads to less safe streets and homes. This is a particularly acute problem for communities of color, and especiallyBlack Americans — who are disproportionately impacted by the devastating effects of gun violence, including police gun violence. These racial disparities reflect a broader crisis in public safety and policing that demands systemic reform and real accountability.
Litigation Director of GIFFORDS Law Center, Esther Sanchez-Gomez, said:
“Black Americans, particularly young Black men, are disproportionately affected by gun violence. More than one in four fatal police shootings involves a Black victim, though Black Americans make up just 14% of the US population. Police violence harms communities by diminishing trust in law enforcement, which further exacerbates gun violence, including against lawful gun owners – and fighting it is part of gun violence prevention. We are urging the Supreme Court to rule that the full context, not just the isolated moment of an officer’s perceived threat, must be taken into account when considering whether police lawfully used deadly force. Failing to hold officers accountable for excessive and deadly force will inevitably lead to more violence.”
Chief Legal Officer of Brady, Douglas Letter, said:
“When communities cannot trust law enforcement to use force reasonably and face accountability when they do not, public safety suffers dramatically. That is why the ‘moment of the threat’ doctrine — which isolates a single moment of police use of force from all context — not only contradicts common-sense and constitutional principles, but also gives officers a free pass for creating the very danger they later claim justified their use of deadly force. Common sense and the Constitution demand that courts examine the full context of police encounters — anything less undermines both justice and public safety.”
MEDIA REQUESTS
Our experts can speak to the full spectrum of gun violence prevention issues. Have a question? Email us at media@giffords.org.
Contact