Case reveals fault lines on Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — A fleeing woman shot by police officers may sue them for using excessive force, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, saying the shooting was a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment even though the woman managed to escape.

“The application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the 5-3 decision.

The ruling elicited a sharp dissent from three of the court’s conservatives, who came close to accusing the chief justice of bending the law in response to the public uproar over police violence.

Justice Neil Gorsuch offered a possible reason for the majority’s decision to let the plaintiff, Roxanne Torres, pursue her suit: “Maybe it is an impulse that individuals like Ms. Torres should be able to sue for damages.”

“Sometimes police shootings are justified, but other times they cry out for a remedy. The majority seems to give voice to this sentiment,” Gorsuch wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

“The dissent speculates that the real reason for today’s decision is an ‘impulse’ to provide relief to Torres. There is no call for such surmise,” Roberts responded, saying the court effectively had answered the question before it in a 1991 decision featuring a majority opinion from conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion, as did the court’s three liberals — Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. That coalition now appears to represent the most likely one in which the liberal bloc prevails.

The case was argued before Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court, and she didn’t take part in deciding it.