Think Progress
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt at least a partial blow to police reform advocates Monday, in a ruling
that held police officers could not be sued after all for firing
gunshots at a severely mentally disabled woman who threatened violence.
The decision is a loss for plaintiff Teresa Sheehan, who survived the
deadly police force, and had won the right to sue in the lower courts. Studies in several cities
have found that about half of police shooting victims are mentally ill,
and that the mentally ill are disproportionate victims of excessive
police force. Sheehan, like many of disabled police shooting victims, was shot in what started as a call to police for help.
But Monday’s Supreme Court ruling also avoided what could have been a much worse outcome for disability advocates. The justices punted
on what was perhaps the most significant question before the U.S.
Supreme Court — how federal disabilities protections under the Americans
with Disabilities Act applies to this sort of police conduct. Had the
justices ruled on that question, advocates warned,
the conservative Roberts Court could have made disabilities protections
substantially weaker than they are now. “While San Francisco may intend
to craft arguments that it believes will limit the damage to
individuals’ rights under the ADA, it will have little control over what
the Supreme Court does,” disability groups wrote in a letter to San
Francisco, urging the city to drop its appeal.
San Francisco didn’t drop its appeal, but the justices heeded its
call for a limited ruling, and didn’t rule at all on the question of
whether those with disabilities should be treated differently by the
police.
Instead, the justices’ ruling made clearer than ever that under
current law, police officers could not have been expected to consider
Sheehan’s mental illness when they entered her room at a group home
twice, and responded to her violent threats by shooting her six times.
“The Fourth Amendment standard is reasonableness, and it is reasonable
for police to move quickly if delay ‘would gravely endanger their lives
or the lives of others.’,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the
six-justice majority, noting that they could not weigh in on the
relevance of Sheehan’s disability.