The Supreme Court for a number of years has sided with cops in police brutality cases.
The justices did it again Monday, issuing an unsigned summary decision granting immunity to a Texas officer who shot and killed a motorist fleeing police, even though the officer lacked training or even specific orders to open fire.
In so many words, the court ruled the shooting death was legally justified.
The case arose from a civil rights lawsuit against Texas Department of Public Safety trooper Chadrin Mullenix, who wasn't involved in the chase but had responded to a checkpoint along its route to help intercept a vehicle driven by Israel Leija. Leija was wanted on an arrest warrant, and had fled when police officers tried to serve the warrant at a Sonic restaurant.
When Mullenix observed that other officers had already set up tire spikes beneath an overpass to disable Leija's car, he considered his own solo strategy: He grabbed his service rifle, hopped atop the overpass and got into "shooting position."
Mullenix had asked a superior for permission to proceed, but by the time he was in position, he claimed, he was too far away to hear the order to stand by to "see if the spikes work first." Once Leija was within his range of vision, Mullenix shot six rounds. Moments later, Leija's car hit the median and flipped over two and a half times.
What killed Leija, it was later determined, wasn't the crash but the shots from Mullenix's rifle, four of which hit him in the upper torso.
In the Supreme Court's view, Mullenix's use of deadly force was reasonable.
Because the case involved "a fugitive fleeing arrest, at speeds over 100 miles per hour, who was armed and possibly intoxicated" and "who had threatened to kill any officer he saw if the police did not abandon their pursuit," the court declined to find Mullenix "plainly incompetent" and concluded he did not violate any "clearly established" precedent under the Constitution.
The court also admonished that it has "never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the Fourth Amendment."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the lone dissenter, said there was no doubt what this case was about.
"Mullenix’s rogue conduct killed the driver, Israel Leija, Jr.," she wrote flatly, before combing through the factual record to assail how the court "recharacterized" the facts to favor the officer, including his superior's order to not proceed.
"Indeed, reading the majority opinion," Sotomayor wrote, "one would scarcely believe that Mullenix arrived at the overpass several minutes before he took his shot, or that the rural road where the car chase occurred had few cars and no bystanders or businesses."
Then Sotomayor offered a crucial fact that the court seemed to have purposely ignored.
"When Mullenix confronted his superior officer after the shooting, his first words were, 'How’s that for proactive?'" she wrote.
"The glib comment does not impact our legal analysis," she wrote as she explained the legal standard governing use of force. "But the comment seems to me revealing of the culture this Court’s decision supports when it calls it reasonable — or even reasonably reasonable — to use deadly force for no discernible gain and over a supervisor’s express order to 'stand by.'"
Then came this bit of legal realism about police violence -- perhaps the greatest indictment of police brutality written in a Supreme Court opinion since events in Ferguson drew the national conversation to that subject last summer.
"By sanctioning a 'shoot first, think later' approach to policing," Sotomayor wrote, "the court renders the protections of the Fourth Amendment hollow."
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.