Excessive Force Litigation

Supreme Court Clarifies Fourth Amendment Test for Police Use of Force

In July 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling clarifying the scope of the legal test for police officers' use of force under the Fourth Amendment. The decision addressed lower court disagreement about how to evaluate excessive force claims, providing clearer guidance for both officers and civil rights litigants.

What the Ruling Means

The case centered on whether the legal test for excessive force should consider the totality of circumstances leading up to the use of force, or only the moment of force itself. The Court's clarification has significant implications for Section 1983 litigation, as it affects how courts evaluate claims against officers and municipalities.

Recent Developments in Police Accountability

The ruling comes amid a wave of police accountability reforms across the country. In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani ordered a comprehensive review of NYPD use-of-force policies in October 2026, calling it "the first comprehensive review" of its kind in a decade. The review follows the retirement of an officer facing disciplinary trial for the death of 19-year-old Win Rozario in 2024.

In Minnesota, the Derek Chauvin verdict remains a reference point for discussions about police accountability. Civil rights advocates have noted that while high-profile convictions generate attention, systemic changes require sustained political will, budget allocation, and community oversight.

The Legal Landscape

Qualified immunity remains a significant barrier to accountability. Courts continue to grapple with whether officers can be held liable when existing precedent has not "clearly established" that the specific conduct was unconstitutional. The Tenth Circuit and other appellate courts have repeatedly granted immunity in use-of-force cases by concluding that officers lacked fair notice.

Meanwhile, municipal liability under Section 1983 requires plaintiffs to identify a specific policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation — a standard that makes holding cities accountable difficult even when individual officers are found liable.

What This Means for Accountability

The Supreme Court's clarification of the excessive force test is a procedural step, not a substantive change. It does not alter the underlying standard — force must still be "reasonable" under the circumstances. But it may reduce confusion in lower courts and lead to more consistent outcomes.

For civil rights litigants, the challenge remains proving that force was unreasonable and that the officer had fair notice. For departments, the challenge is translating legal standards into training, supervision, and accountability mechanisms that prevent excessive force before it occurs.