The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a Michigan police officer's attempt to evade an excessive force claim arising from an incident during a protest following George Floyd's killing in Minneapolis. The court turned away an appeal brought by Phillip Reinink, a Grand Rapids police officer who deployed tear gas during a May 30, 2020 demonstration.
Reinink said he believed his launcher was loaded with a powder form of tear gas designed to be fired directly at individuals. Instead, it contained a canister meant to be shot into the air. The canister struck protester Sean Hart and injured his shoulder. A police department investigation concluded Reinink's use of force was unreasonable, resulting in a two-day suspension.
The case centered on qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that often shields officers from civil rights claims alleging constitutional violations. While police officers frequently prevail on qualified immunity grounds, Reinink did not, meaning the lawsuit against him can proceed.
In March 2023, a federal judge in Michigan dismissed Hart's claim that Reinink had violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful searches and seizures. However, in May 2025, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Hart's favor, finding that the incident involved deadly force regardless of whether Reinink intended to deploy such force.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative legal observers argue that qualified immunity serves a necessary function in allowing officers to make split-second decisions without fear of frivolous lawsuits. Two Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, indicated they would have ruled for Reinink, suggesting there remains significant support on the court for protecting officers from excessive litigation risk.
Law enforcement groups contend that requiring officers to second-guess their training and equipment choices in chaotic situations could undermine public safety. The distinction between powder-based tear gas and canisters designed for aerial deployment represents a technical error rather than intentional misconduct, some conservative commentators argue.
What the Left Is Saying
Civil rights advocates have long argued that qualified immunity has become a barrier to accountability for police misconduct. The decision allowing Hart's lawsuit to proceed represents a potential crack in that shield, they say. Protesters who took to the streets in 2020 called for reforms including the elimination of qualified immunity protections. Those efforts largely stalled at the federal level.
Organizations such as the ACLU have argued that officers should face consequences when their actions violate clearly established constitutional rights. The 6th Circuit's reasoning that Reinink should have known using such force was unlawful reflects a growing willingness among some courts to scrutinize police conduct more closely, progressive advocates contend.
What the Numbers Show
A 2020 Reuters investigation found that police officers increasingly used Supreme Court rulings strengthening qualified immunity to fend off excessive force claims. The doctrine has been invoked in thousands of cases since its modern interpretation took shape.
Reinink was suspended for two days following an internal department review that deemed his use of force unreasonable. The 6th Circuit's May 2025 decision reversed a federal judge's March 2023 dismissal, allowing Hart to pursue his Fourth Amendment claim.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's refusal to hear Reinink's appeal means the case returns to lower courts for further proceedings on the merits of Hart's excessive force allegation. The decision does not establish new national precedent but allows existing legal standards regarding qualified immunity to be applied in this instance. Watch for how lower courts interpret whether Reinink had fair notice that his conduct was unlawful, a key question that could determine the outcome.