United States v. Carter
Decision
The Supreme Court declined to review a case regarding whether a person's race should be considered when determining if a police encounter was a seizure.
The Supreme Court chose not to hear a case about whether courts should consider a person's race to decide if they felt 'free to leave' during a police interaction.
Plain-English summary generated by AI from the Court's published opinion on June 23, 2026. Always read the official opinion for the controlling text.
Key Takeaways
- 01The Supreme Court left in place a ruling that allows race to be considered in determining if a police stop is legal.
- 02Justice Alito and Justice Thomas argued that the Constitution should remain 'color-blind' in these police-citizen interactions.
- 03The 'reasonable person' test usually asks if a generic person would feel free to leave, but D.C. now uses a race-specific version of that test.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves in place a District of Columbia ruling that factors in a person's racial background when evaluating the legality of police stops.
Who Is Affected?
Residents of the District of Columbia
Individuals in D.C. may have different legal protections during police encounters depending on their racial background and 'lived experiences.'
D.C. Metropolitan Police Department
Officers must navigate a legal standard that requires them to consider how a suspect's race affects that person's perception of whether they are free to leave.
What Happened?
In 2020, plain-clothes officers approached Donte Carter and several other Black men in a Washington, D.C. neighborhood. An officer asked Carter if he had a weapon and requested that he 'hike' up his pants, which revealed a bulge that turned out to be a stolen gun. Carter argued the gun should be suppressed as evidence because the police request turned the encounter into an illegal seizure. The D.C. Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that a reasonable Black man in Carter's position would not have felt free to leave or refuse the officer's request.
Legal Question
Should courts consider a suspect's race when applying the 'reasonable person' test to determine if a police encounter counts as an official seizure under the Fourth Amendment?
Why the Court Ruled This Way
In a brief order, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning it will not hear the case and the lower court's ruling stands. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented from this denial, arguing that the Court should have addressed the D.C. Court of Appeals' use of a race-based 'reasonable person' standard. Alito contended that existing precedent, such as United States v. Drayton, uses a color-blind 'reasonable person' test rather than one tailored to specific racial groups. He expressed concern that requiring officers to apply different rules based on a suspect's race or ethnic background would create practical difficulties and conflict with constitutional principles of equal treatment. Because the majority of the Court did not comment, the denial does not set a national precedent but leaves the D.C. ruling intact for that jurisdiction.
Arguments in Favor
Supporters of the lower court's approach argue that a 'reasonable person' test must account for real-world social dynamics and lived experiences. They suggest that historical and statistical evidence shows members of certain racial groups may feel more pressure to comply with police, making an encounter feel mandatory rather than voluntary.
Arguments Against
Critics argue that the Constitution is color-blind and should not allow the government to treat people differently based on race. They contend that injecting race into legal tests relies on generalizations about how groups think or act, which could hamper police work and create inconsistent legal standards.
Timeline
September 2020
Police officers approach Donte Carter on a sidewalk.
Officers responded to reports of gunfire in the area and asked Carter to hike his pants, leading to the discovery of a firearm.
2025
D.C. Court of Appeals reverses the lower court.
The court ruled that Carter was illegally seized because a reasonable Black man would not have felt free to end the encounter.
June 22, 2026
The Supreme Court denies the petition for certiorari.
By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court allowed the D.C. court's ruling to remain in effect without deciding on its constitutionality.
What This Means for Everyday Americans
For most Americans outside of Washington, D.C., this decision changes nothing for now. However, for those living in or visiting the District, the rules for when a police officer is legally allowed to stop and search you are now tied to a court's interpretation of your racial experience. This means that a person's race could determine whether evidence found by the police can be used against them in court. It reflects a growing debate over whether the law should treat everyone exactly the same or whether it should account for the different ways people from different backgrounds experience the world.
What Happens Next?
The D.C. Court of Appeals' ruling remains the law in the District of Columbia, meaning local courts will continue to consider race in similar Fourth Amendment cases. Donte Carter's evidence will remain suppressed, potentially affecting his criminal charges. Similar cases in other parts of the country may eventually force the Supreme Court to revisit this issue to ensure national consistency.
Explain It Like I'm 12
Usually, when a police officer talks to you, a judge decides if you were 'trapped' or 'free to go' by asking what an average person would feel. In this case, a court in D.C. said we shouldn't just look at an average person, but specifically how a Black person might feel when talking to the police. They argued that because of history and how the world works, a Black person might feel they have to stay even if the officer doesn't tell them to. Some judges on the Supreme Court thought this was a mistake and wanted to change it, saying the law shouldn't look at race at all. Because the Supreme Court didn't take the case, the D.C. rule stays for now, but it doesn't apply to the rest of the country yet.
Broader Context
The case highlights a tension between the 'reasonable person' standard established in cases like United States v. Drayton and growing efforts by lower courts to incorporate social context into Fourth Amendment law. It also touches on the Supreme Court's recent emphasis on color-blindness in government action, as seen in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
Key Players
Donte J. Carter
The respondent who challenged the legality of a police stop that led to his arrest for firearm offenses.
The United States Government
The petitioner asking the Supreme Court to overturn the D.C. Court of Appeals decision and maintain a race-neutral legal test.
D.C. Court of Appeals
The local court that ruled race is a factor in determining if a police encounter is a seizure.