By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court spent nearly 80 minutes Wednesday debating a traffic stop outside Houston that turned deadly in just five seconds.

In a decision that could determine whether courts may consider the circumstances leading up to the use of deadly force, a majority of the justices signaled they will side with the family of an unarmed 24-year-old man who was killed soon after being pulled over driving a rental car in 2016 for suspected toll violations.

The excessive force suit from the family of Ashtian Barnes is one of many to make its way to the high court at a time when the nation and federal courts continue to wrestle with when to hold police accountable for split-second decisions that wind up being lethal.

That thorny and often technical legal debate is increasingly wrapped up in politics, with President Donald Trump often suggesting police should have more license to use excessive force. In September, for instance, Trump said that “one real, rough, nasty day” of police enforcement would put an end to shoplifting.

“We are here today because Ashtian Barnes was shot and killed on the side of a Texas highway after being pulled over for unpaid tolls,” said Nathaniel Zelinsky, the lawyer for Barnes’ family. “The question before this court is how to determine whether Ashtian’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated.”

Roberto Felix Jr., a traffic enforcement officer in Harris County, pulled Barnes over after a camera flagged his license plate for unpaid tolls. Seconds after police asked Barnes to step out of his Toyota Corolla, the car instead lurched forward with Felix standing on the door sill, firing.

At issue is whether courts may consider the moments leading up to the threats police face – including, in this case, Felix’s decision to step into the car’s open door – when they’re reviewing excessive force claims or whether courts can review only the “moment of threat” and an officer’s response.

The conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it could consider only the two-second span during which Barnes’ car moved forward, potentially threatening Felix’s life. Barnes’ family asserted the court should have also considered what happened in the preceding three seconds.

A majority of the Supreme Court, both liberal and conservative justices, seemed inclined to side with the family on that question.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, asked whether the calculus might be different if Felix had walked up to the car in plain clothes. His attorney, Charles McCloud, conceded that it might be.

“All right,” Sotomayor said. “So you’ve given the game away because, at that point, you have to look at what the officer did” before the threat to his life was clear.

At one point conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch said that “everybody agrees” that the analysis used by the 5th Circuit to consider the case was “wrong.”

A ruling in favor of Barnes wouldn’t decide the case but would rather allow the litigation to continue. Even if lower courts ultimately decide Felix acted unreasonably, he may nevertheless be shielded by qualified immunity – a legal doctrine that protects officers from repercussions when they are forced to make quick decisions.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, was the most outspoken in favor of Felix. He questioned the message the decision might send to other police faced with difficult choices about what to do when a driver flees.

“What’s an officer supposed to do when at a traffic stop and someone pulls away? Just let him go?” Kavanaugh asked.

“An officer,” the justice added, “does not get the time we’ve spent here today to make the decision.”

Both Kavanaugh and Zelinsky noted the terror attack earlier this month in New Orleans, where a driver rammed a pickup truck into a crowd on Bourbon Street.

The Biden administration backed Barnes’ family in November – arguing for the Supreme Court to return the case to the 5th Circuit. Zoe Jacoby, representing the Trump Justice Department, told the Supreme Court during Wednesday’s session that there was “very little daylight” between the federal government and Barnes family in the case.

Sarah Harris, who is serving as acting solicitor general, sat in on the Supreme Court arguments for a second day Wednesday, joining other Justice Department attorneys. Harris is expected to lead the office until the Senate confirms Trump’s nominee for the post, D. John Sauer.

Although the Supreme Court is juggling several controversial cases involving the federal government, the incoming administration has not yet sought to change its position in any of them. The Supreme Court often views such switches between administrations unfavorably, though they do sometimes occur.

US Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham, nominated by President Ronald Reagan, wrote the appeals court decision siding with Felix in the case last year but took the highly unusual step of writing a concurring opinion to assert that the case should have turned out differently.

Higginbotham said he was bound by 5th Circuit precedent limiting his review to the moment of threat.

“The totality of the circumstances merits finding that Officer Felix violated Barnes’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force,” Higginbotham wrote. “It is plain that the use of lethal force against this unarmed man preceded any real threat to Officer Felix’s safety.”

CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.