Supreme Court Vacates Judgment of Reasonable Force Case

On June 28, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to vacate the judgment and send the case of Lombardo v. City of St. Louis to the lower court to look at again. The original decision in the case says that a police officer acted with proper force in restraining a prisoner in a way similar to the George Floyd case, where an officer knelt on Floyd’s neck until he died.

The parents of Nicholas Gilbert were the ones who brought the case. In a St. Louis prison, Gilbert was restrained by multiple officers who had him face down and applied pressure to his neck and torso for 15 minutes. Gilbert was restrained because an officer thought he was going to hang himself. Gilbert was 5’3” and 160 pounds. Three officers restrained him with handcuffs and made him kneel. Gilbert kicked the officers, who called for backup. Three more officers came into the cell, and Gilbert was in both handcuffs and leg restraints. He was put face down on the floor, with three officers holding down his legs, shoulders, and biceps, and another officer was pushing down on his back. Gilbert said, "It hurts. Stop." He continued to struggle. Then, after 15 minutes, he stopped moving. The officers turned him over and tried to find a pulse. When they could not find one, they performed CPR and had Gilbert sent to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. The Supreme Court says that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals did not fully examine the situation.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the officers had not used unconstitutionally excessive force against Gilbert.

"We express no view as to whether the officers used unconstitutionally excessive force or, if they did, whether Gilbert’s right to be free of such force in these circumstances was clearly established at the time of his death," the Supreme Court said. "We instead grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Eighth Circuit, and remand the case to give the court the opportunity to employ an inquiry that clearly attends to the facts and circumstances in answering those questions in the first instance."

Photo Source: Nicholas B. Gilbert (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Alito wrote a scathing dissent where he accused his fellow justices of being too scared to not take the case. He wrote: “The Court, unfortunately, is unwilling to face up to the choice between denying the petition (and bearing the criticism that would inevitably elicit) and granting plenary review (and doing the work that would entail). Instead, it claims to be uncertain whether the Court of Appeals actually applied the correct legal standard, and for that reason it vacates the judgment below and remands the case. This course of action may be convenient for this Court, but it is unfair to the Court of Appeals. If we expect the lower courts to respect our decisions, we should not twist their opinions to make our job easier….”

"We have two respectable options: deny review of the factbound question that the case presents or grant the petition, have the case briefed and argued, roll up our sleeves, and decide the real issue," Alito wrote. "I favor the latter course, but what we should not do is take the easy out that the Court has chosen."

Since the case is so similar to the George Floyd case, if the Supreme Court took it, it could lead to a great deal of controversy. To avoid controversy, the argument goes, the Court is instead sending the case back for further proceedings instead of ruling on it and ending the case there. Either way, Gilbert’s parents will have to wait a bit longer to hopefully receive the closure and justice they seek.