This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), Scott v. Harris concerns whether a police officer may use deadly force to stop a fleeing vehicle when the suspect poses a risk to public safety.
Background and question before the Court
According to MR. JONES, Officer Scott admitted he knew he was using deadly force and that it could cause serious injury or death to Harris.
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), the central legal question is when police may use deadly force to stop a fleeing vehicle that poses a substantial risk to other motorists or officers.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the rule requires balancing the risk to the fleeing suspect against the risk to others.
Justice Breyer asked what the standard is for determining the reasonableness of the officer’s use of force.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Scott) Position
According to MR. JONES, petitioner argues that Officer Scott knowingly used deadly force and was aware it could cause serious injury or death to Harris.
According to Petitioner (Mr. SAVRIN), according to Petitioner (Mr. SAVRIN), petitioner contends that to deny qualified immunity, a jury must find that there was no probable cause and that the legal principle was clearly established.
Respondent (Harris) Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts opened the argument, announcing the case.
Justice Stevens asked whether the case would be the same if the shopping‑center incident had not occurred.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy questioned the proposed rule that requires balancing the risk to the fleeing suspect against the risk to others.
Justice Breyer asked what the standard is for determining the reasonableness of the officer’s use of force.
According to MR. JONES, petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Jones, testified that Officer Scott knew he was using deadly force and that it could cause serious injury or death.
Respondent’s counsel, Craig T. Jones, argued on behalf of Harris.
- [1] 804517cf1bde66ec4e86-r1-b521cee14ffc1871.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 804517cf1bde66ec4e86-r1-b521cee14ffc1871.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 804517cf1bde66ec4e86-r1-b521cee14ffc1871.pdf, p. 5
- [4] 804517cf1bde66ec4e86-r1-b521cee14ffc1871.pdf, p. 33
- [5] 804517cf1bde66ec4e86-r1-b521cee14ffc1871.pdf, p. 26
- [6] 804517cf1bde66ec4e86-r1-b521cee14ffc1871.pdf, p. 26
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), the case addresses the scope of police authority to use deadly force during vehicle pursuits to protect public safety.
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), amicus briefs argue that when a suspect endangers others by fleeing, the police may lawfully employ deadly force to protect the public.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 804517cf1bde66ec4e86-r1-b521cee14ffc1871.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.