⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Sixth Circuit reviews the fatal shooting of Mark Capps at his home near Nashville. Officers went to arrest him after family members reported that he had held them at gunpoint and threatened responding police. A tactical team was placing door-breaching explosives when he opened the door. An officer shot and killed him within seconds. His estate sued the officer and the city for excessive force. The officers say he pointed a gun toward them. The estate disputes whether the evidence proves an imminent threat, relying on body-camera footage, differing accounts, and a forensic expert. The video does not clearly show his hands at the doorway. The district judge ruled for the officer and then the city without a trial. This is summary judgment: it is appropriate only when no genuine dispute over facts that matter requires a trial. Qualified immunity is another issue. It protects an officer from civil damages unless the officer violated a federal right clearly established in those circumstances at the time. The estate will argue that a jury must resolve the disputed evidence. The defendants will argue that the record shows a deadly threat and that existing law did not clearly prohibit the officer's response. You'll also hear discussion of Barnes. The Supreme Court rejected confining an excessive-force inquiry to the final instant of danger; relevant earlier events belong in the analysis too. Here, that brings the team's approach and tactical planning into the discussion, without automatically making the shooting unconstitutional.

Capps v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, et al. (No. 25-5761) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued October 21, 2026.