Here’s what could happen.
Two conservative Supreme Court justices are warning that a controversial court ruling could make police work far more difficult—and create different legal standards based on race.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas sounded the alarm Monday after the Supreme Court declined to hear a case they believe raises serious constitutional concerns.
According to the pair, the lower court’s decision could force police officers to make split-second decisions based not only on a person’s actions, but also on the color of their skin.
For law enforcement officers already working under intense pressure, Alito suggested the ruling creates a dangerous new burden.
The case involves Donte J. Carter, a Washington, D.C., man whose firearm convictions were overturned after an appeals court ruled that police effectively detained him before they had enough evidence to justify the encounter.
During the interaction, officers eventually discovered a stolen .40-caliber handgun hidden in Carter’s clothing. Prosecutors said the weapon had been taken from an FBI agent’s vehicle.
But the larger issue wasn’t the firearm.
Instead, the appeals court focused on race.
Judges concluded that Carter’s race should be considered when determining whether a reasonable person would have felt free to walk away from police officers.
The court pointed to studies suggesting that many Black Americans are more distrustful of law enforcement and therefore may be less likely to end an encounter with police.
That reasoning immediately raised red flags for Alito and Thomas.
In a sharply worded dissent, Alito warned that courts are moving toward a system where Americans could be treated differently under the law based on race.
“It is dangerous to allow an individual to be treated differently based on statistics, studies, or expert testimony,” Alito wrote.
He argued that while the ruling benefited Carter, the same principle could easily be used against others in future cases.
The justice also questioned where such race-based distinctions would stop.
If special legal standards apply to one racial group, he asked, would courts eventually create separate rules for other ethnic groups as well?
Alito argued that such an approach clashes with one of the most basic principles of American law: equal treatment under the Constitution.
He pointed to multiple Supreme Court rulings emphasizing that government officials generally cannot treat citizens differently because of race.
The dissent also criticized the assumption that individuals should be judged according to broad beliefs supposedly shared by members of the same racial group.
Federal attorneys made a similar argument, warning that the lower court’s ruling effectively requires officers to assume that all Black Americans have identical views about police encounters.
Court records show that when officers first approached Carter, he denied carrying a weapon.
Police then asked him to pull up his sagging pants.
As he did so, officers spotted an L-shaped bulge consistent with a firearm.
The object was later identified as a stolen .40-caliber pistol.
For Alito and Thomas, however, the firearm was never the central issue.
Their concern is what the ruling could mean for future police encounters across America.
If courts increasingly require officers to consider race when applying constitutional standards, the justices fear law enforcement could be forced to operate under a patchwork of different rules depending on who they are dealing with.
To the two conservative justices, that’s a dangerous path—one that threatens both effective policing and the principle that every American should be treated equally under the law.
