Alito, Thomas Dissent in Race-Based Policing Case

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear United States v. Donte J. Carter, a case testing whether a person’s race can be considered in determining when a police encounter becomes a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of certiorari, warning that the D.C. Court of Appeals’ race-conscious approach to the “reasonable person” test forces police to apply different legal standards based on race.

The Case

The case stems from a 2020 incident in Washington, D.C., where officers approached Donte Carter, a Black man standing on a sidewalk. After Carter denied carrying a weapon, an officer asked him to “hike” or pull up his pants. Officers then noticed an L-shaped bulge later identified as a .40-caliber pistol that had been stolen from an FBI agent’s vehicle, according to Fox News.

Carter was convicted on eight counts, but the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed, holding that he had been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment before officers had reasonable suspicion. The court ruled that Carter’s race was a relevant factor in determining whether a reasonable person would have felt free to end the encounter.

The Dissent

Justice Alito, joined by Thomas, wrote that “[i]t is dangerous to allow an individual to be treated differently based on statistics, studies, or expert testimony that purports to show that members of the racial or ethnic group to which he belongs are more likely to act in a certain way than are members of other groups.” As SCOTUSblog reported, Alito stressed that the Constitution “‘almost never’ allows government actors to treat persons differently based on their race.”

Alito questioned the practical implications of the lower court’s ruling, asking: “Under the test, officers will need to quickly assess a person’s race, and if officers and courts must craft special rules for black persons, what about dark-skinned Latinos, other Latinos, and members of other minority groups?” He cited Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, Louisiana v. Callais, and Shaw v. Reno as precedent supporting the principle that the Constitution is “color-blind.”

The D.C. Court’s Reasoning

The D.C. Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Senior Judge Eric Washington, cited evidence that Black Americans are “especially distrustful of law enforcement” and “less likely than other people to terminate a police encounter” due to historical and social factors, including disproportionate police violence against Black men. As USA Today reported, the court noted that Black parents routinely give children “the talk” about how to act around law enforcement.

The court held that “an objective and reasonable Black man in Mr. Carter’s shoes” would have felt compelled to comply with the officers’ demands. Carter’s attorneys argued that race is a permissible consideration under United States v. Mendenhall (1980), which suggested race is “not irrelevant” to the analysis.

The Government’s Position

The U.S. Department of Justice, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, urged the Supreme Court to take the case, calling the lower court’s ruling “deeply flawed” and arguing it “threatens to seriously hinder law enforcement in the Nation’s capital.” Sauer wrote that “[t]he Constitution does not tolerate, much less mandate, judicial presumptions about how people of a particular race think,” as Newsweek reported.

Analysis and Implications

The core constitutional question is whether the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonable person” test — traditionally an objective standard — can incorporate race-specific considerations. The D.C. Court of Appeals held that it can, reasoning that a Black man’s lived experiences, including historical distrust of law enforcement, are relevant to whether he would feel free to end a police encounter.

Critics of the ruling argue that race-specific standards could proliferate, requiring different rules for different racial and ethnic groups. Alito warned that statistics and stereotypes about group behavior should not determine individual rights, noting that “here, the special treatment helped the individual; in other situations it will not.”

What’s Next

Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling remains in effect in Washington, D.C., and Carter’s conviction is vacated. However, Alito’s dissent signals that if other jurisdictions adopt similar race-conscious standards, the issue could return to the Supreme Court for a definitive nationwide ruling. The case touches on fundamental questions about whether the Constitution’s objective legal standards can — or should — account for differing lived experiences based on race, a debate that is far from settled.