We'll hear argument first this morning in case 23, 1239, Barnes v. Felix.

Mr. Zelensky.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, we are here today because Ashton Barnes was shot and killed on the side of a Texas highway after being pulled over for unpaid tolls.

The question before this Court is how to determine whether Ashton's Fourth Amendment

rights were violated. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures. Justice Scalia was no

fan of a totality of the circumstances test. But in Scott, Justice Scalia made clear that courts

must slosh through the fact-bound morass of reasonableness.

In this case, the district court and the Fifth Circuit didn't do that.

Instead, they applied the moment of the threat doctrine.

According to the Fifth Circuit decision below, quote,

we may only ask whether Officer Felix was in danger at the moment of the threat decision below, quote, we may only ask whether Officer Felix was in

danger at the moment of the threat, and, quote, any of the officer's actions leading up to the

shooting are not relevant. This kind of legal amnesia is incompatible with precedent,

conflicts with common law, and defies common sense.

Until now, respondents had embraced the moment of the threat doctrine.

But before this court, respondents have abruptly shifted position.

They now argue that court should look to what occurs before the moment of the threat

and apply the law of self-defense

and superseding cause. Absolutely none of this appears in the decision below. All of it confirms

why the moment of the threat doctrine is so wrong. Finally, as Judge Higamotham

underscored in his concurrence, the facts show that Officer Felix

acted unreasonably. But this is a court of review, not of first view. The court should rule for

...