“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 shot and killed a man he was arresting, but was granted immunity in a civil lawsuit for wrongful death.
What happened in this case?
Officer David Collier and a partner went to the house of Jacob Settle to arrest him and his wife. They found Settle in his truck, where he refused to leave and started the truck. Collier feared the truck would hit him so he fired into it,and Settle was hit and died. Collier was sued for excessive use of force.
Collier claimed qualified immunity, but the district court denied him summary judgment on that ground. Collier appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. George W Bush nominee William Pryor,Trump judge Elizabeth Branch, and Biden judge Nancy Abudu decided the case in December 2025 in Settle v Collier, with Pryor and Branch in the majority.
What did Trump judge Branch and Bush judge Pryor decide?
Judge Pryor wrote a 2-1 decision joined by Trump judge Branch that reversed the district court and directed that Officer Collier should get summary judgment and qualified immunity.
He maintained that the facts showed that the truck was about to be used as a deadly weapon and that Collier was justified shooting into it and hitting Settle.
What did Judge Abudu say in dissent?
Judge Abudu firmly dissented. She pointed out that the record contained “conflicting evidence” on whether the truck actually posed a threat to Collier and related issues. These issues were “appropriatefor a jury” and should not have led to summary judgment for Collier.
Why is the result harmful?
Trump judge Branch’s deciding vote obviously harms the quest of the family of Jacob Settle to obtain justice in connection with Settle’s killing by a police officer. It also sets a bad precedent concerning such cases, particularly in the Eleventh Circuit, including Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. The decision 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.