“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?
An individual harmed by police use of excessive force sought to recover damages for his injuries.
What happened in this case?
After a car chase and crash, Officer Brian Olvera sought to arrest one of the drivers, James Smith. The record indicates that Olvera repeatedly struck Smith with a baton, including in the head, and broke his arm. Smith stated that he sustained a “raised welt’ on his neck and that two of his teeth were knocked out. He later filed suit in federal court, accusing Olvera of using excessive force against him.
The district court granted qualified immunity to Olvera and dismissed the case against him on summary judgment. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
In July 2026, Trump judge Danielle Forrest and Obama judge Morgen Christen issued a 2-1 decision that affirmed the ruling below against Smith in Smith v Olvera. They wrote that qualified immunity was properly granted because Olvera could reasonably have believed that Smith possessed a gun at the time of the incident. Clinton judge Sidney Thomas dissented.
Why did Judge Thomas dissent?
Judge Thomas explained that the majority was wrong because past precedent has clearly established that possession of a gun does not itself “justify deadly force.” The key issue, he went on, was whether Smith was taking “furtive or threatening actions,” which is a “disputed factual issue” that should be decided by a jury, not resolved on summary judgment
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Forrest obviously harms James Smith and his effort to recover damages for the use of excessive force. It also sets a bad precedent concerning such excessive force cases, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.