“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
The family of a driver who was killed by a drunk police officer driving recklessly brought suit against the officer. He claimed he was protected from liability by qualified immunity.
What happened in this case?
Tuskegee, Alabama police deputy Darian Locure got drunk and drove his police vehicle at night with no lights on at 70 mph in a 25 mph zone. Locure struck a car in which Edwin Moss was being driven home, causing it to “flip repeatedly before landing in a ditch.” Locure did not slow or stop, and he killed Moss.
Moss’ family sued Locure, including bringing a claim under 42 USC 1983 for deliberate indifference. The district court denied Locure’s claim of qualified immunity and he appealed. The Eleventh Circuit issued a 2-1 decision reversing the court below and granting qualified immunity to Locure. Trump judge Andrew Brasher wrote the decision, joined by George W Bush judge William Pryor, in January 2026 in Hughes v Locure, with a dissent by Obama judge Adalberto Jordan.
How did Trump judge Brasher and Bush judge Pryor rule?
Brasher’s opinion, which Bush joined, maintained that Locure should get qualified immunity under “circuit precedent.” Accordingly, he reversed the decision below and granted qualified immunity to Locure, which meant that Moss’ family received no compensation under section 1983 for Locure’s misconduct
What did Judge Jordan say in dissent?
Judge Jordan strongly dissented. By driving in the evening with no lights and at “45 miles per hour over the speed limit” on a local road, Jordan wrote, Locure turned his police vehicle into a deadly weapon and “played Russian Roulette with the unwitting residents of Tuskegee.” Jordan dismissed the majority’s reliance on several prior cases, noting that they were “so materially different” that they “could not have caused any doubt in the mind of a reasonable officer.” “No court” had ever granted qualified immunity based on facts like those alleged here, he concluded, and “I do not think we should be the first.”
Why is the result harmful?
The decision written and made possible by Trump judge Brasher obviously harms the efforts of Edwin Moss’ family to get justice and compensation for the deadly injury he suffered at the hands of a police officer. It also sets a troubling precedent concerning qualified immunity particularly in the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The ruling also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.