“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?
A police officer wanted the claim against him by a Minneapolis protester shortly after the George Floyd killing dismissed.
What happened in this case?
Raven Bartz was in a crowd demonstrating in Minneapolis shortly after the George Floyd shooting. Police threw a “blast ball” at the crowd, causing a large flash and release of chemical irritants, dispersing the crowd. Some police continued to take action, however, and what happened next is what this case was about. Officer Conan Hickey fired a 40mm projectile that hit Bartz in the back of the head as she was leaving. She was taken to a hospital for outpatient treatment, and contends that she has continued to suffer from “headaches, emotional strain, and memory loss.”
Bartz filed a federal lawsuit against Hickey and the city. She claimed that firing the projectile at her head while she was leaving was excessive force. A district court dismissed the case, and Bartz appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Trump judge Steven Grasz affirmed the dismissal in a decision joined by George W Bush nominee Duane Benton. Obama nominee Jane Kelly dissented in the March 2026 decision in Bartz v Minneapolis.
What was the basis for the decision of Trump judge Grasz and GW Bush judge Benton?
Grasz concluded that all the police use of force was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances,” claiming that Minneapolis during the demontrations resembled a “war-torn city.” Hickey’s behavior was “reasonable” under the circumstances, Grasz wrote, and dismissal of the claim against him was proper.
Why did Judge Kelly dissent?
Based on the record, Judge Kelly explained, a “reasonable jury” could have found that a seizure had occurred for 4th amendment purposes and that Hickey had sought to incapacitate, not disperse, when he fired the 40mm gun. In Kelly’s view, the case should have been returned to the district court for “further analysis.”
Why is the decision harmful?
The ruling by Trump judge Grasz obviously harms Raven Bartz and her quest for justice for the harm she suffered from the police. The decision also sets a bad precedent for such cases, particularly in the Eighth Circuit, which includes Minnesota, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota. The case 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.