“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 representative of a man shot and killed by a police officer entering his home to do a welfare check sued for damages against the police.
What happened in this case?
Jerry Crosby’s wife called the police to request a welfare check because Crosby had threatened to harm himself. Crosby pulled out out a rifle when the responding officer Jacob Scott entered and called to him, and Scott shot and killed Crosby.
Crosby’s representative filed suit, including for use of excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the police and the case was appealed to the Fourth Circuit. In July, Trump Fourth Circuit judge Alison Rushing wrote a 2-1 decision affirming the ruling below in Crosby v Colleton County Sherriff’s Office. She agreed with the lower court that “no reasonable jury” could find that Scott used excessive force and that Scott’s actions were “reasonable” based on prior caselaw. Biden judge Toby Heytens agreed, while Obama judge Henry Floyd dissented.
Why did Judge Floyd dissent?
Based on his review of the record, Judge Floyd believed that there were at least three “genuine issues of material fact” that precluded summary judgment and required a trial. These included whether Scott was “readily identifiable” as a police officer or whether Crosby could have believed he was an intruder; whether Crosby picked up the gun but “never pointed it” at the officer; and whether a jury could find that Scott “did not clearly command” Crosby to drop the gun. Floyd strongly maintained that these issues should be resolved by a jury, and that summary judgment was inappropriate.
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Rushing obviously made it impossible for the representative of Jerry Crosby to recover damages for the police killing of him. It also sets a bad precedent concerning cases concerning use of excessive force, particularly on the Fourth Circuit. which includes Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Maryland. In addition, it illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.