The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeal criticized for potentially leading police to apply different rules based on a suspect's race. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion to the court's decision.
The D.C. Circuit's controversial ruling
The case of "United States v. Donte J. Carter" concerned the overturning of the conviction of Carter, a Black American, on firearm and theft charges. The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police did not have reasonable suspicion when they stopped Carter and that the seizure was therefore unlawful.
In its decision, the court stated that "Black Americans like Carter are 'especially distrustful' of law enforcement" and therefore are "less likely" than others to feel free to end a police encounter because they "doubt that their attempts to assert their constitutional rights will be respected."
On these grounds, it ruled that Carter's race must be considered in assessing whether a reasonable person in his position would feel free to terminate the police encounter.
Sharp criticism from Alito and Thomas
Justices Alito and Thomas argued that this D.C. Circuit ruling forces law enforcement to treat people differently based on their race, which Supreme Court precedent prohibits.
Writing the dissent for himself and Thomas, Alito asked, "Under this test, officers will have to quickly assess a person’s race. If officers and courts must create special rules for Black persons, what about dark-skinned Latinos, other Latinos, and members of other minority groups?"
Alito stated, "We have said that our Constitution is colorblind. It 'almost never' permits government actors to treat individuals differently based on their race."
Warning of a "dangerous approach"
The dissent noted, "It is dangerous to permit a person to be treated differently based on statistics, studies, or expert opinions claiming that members of his racial or ethnic group are more likely to do something than members of other groups."
Alito pointed out that in this case the special treatment helped the individual, but in other cases it would not. Citing Shaw v. Reno, he said, "We have rejected the proposition that the Constitution permits a person to be treated differently based on a perception that members of the same racial group—regardless of their age, education, economic status, or the community in which they live—think alike."
In the case, when asked by police if he was carrying a weapon as they approached, Carter lied and said no. When police asked him to pull up his pants, they noticed an L-shaped bulge, which was later determined to be a .40 caliber pistol stolen from a federal agent's vehicle.
