Alito, Thomas Issue Dissent in Supreme Court Decision Linked to Racial Test

The United States Supreme Court turned down a Fourth Amendment-related case Monday, with conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas saying the decision left a major constitutional question unresolved.

The case was linked to whether courts can factor race into determining when a police encounter becomes a seizure, but the court’s decision leaves in place a Washington, D.C., ruling that used a race-conscious legal standard.

What to Know

• The case, United States v. Donte J. Carter, centers on how courts apply the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• At issue is the longstanding “reasonable person” test, which asks whether someone would feel free to end an encounter with police.
• A divided D.C. Court of Appeals held that this analysis should account for the defendant's race, concluding that a “reasonable Black man” might perceive police requests differently.
• The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge to that decision.

Dissenting Justices Warn of Consequences

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the case presented an urgent constitutional question that warranted Supreme Court review.

“The injection of an individual's race into the ‘reasonable person' test contravenes our decisions,” Alito wrote.

He warned that adopting race-specific standards could require courts to craft different rules for different groups and conflict with precedent emphasizing that the Constitution “hardly ever” permits the government to treat individuals differently based on race.

“It is important, and it warrants this Court's review,” Alito added in dissent.

What is U.S. v. Carter About?

United States v. Donte J. Carter centers on a fundamental Fourth Amendment question: when does a routine police encounter become a "seizure" that triggers constitutional protections.

The case stems from a 2020 incident in Washington, D.C., where officers approached Carter, asked if he was armed, and told him to adjust his clothing-an interaction that led to the discovery of a stolen firearm after officers observed a suspicious bulge.

Carter argued he had effectively been seized at the moment of that request, before officers had the reasonable suspicion required under Terry v. Ohio (1968), which permits limited stop-and-frisk encounters only when supported by specific facts.

While trial courts rejected his claim, the D.C. Court of Appeals took an unusual step in reversing, holding that courts must consider how a "reasonable person" in Carter's position-specifically, a Black man-would perceive the encounter, citing evidence that Black men may feel less free to disengage from police due to historical and social factors.

That approach marks a potential departure from decades of Supreme Court precedent, including United States v. Mendenhall (1980) and Florida v. Bostick (1991), which frame the seizure inquiry as whether an objective "reasonable person" would feel free to leave, and United States v. Drayton (2002), which reaffirmed that police questioning alone does not constitute a seizure absent coercion.

By effectively incorporating race into that "reasonable person" test, the D.C. court recast what has traditionally been a uniform standard into a more context-specific inquiry, raising broader questions about whether the Constitution's objective framework can-or should-account for differing lived experiences in police encounters.

What Happens Next

Because the Supreme Court declined to take the case, the D.C. Court of Appeals' ruling remains in effect. However, Alito's dissent signals the issue could return to the high court if other jurisdictions adopt or reject similar approaches, potentially setting up a future nationwide ruling.

Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Jason Lemon.

2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

This story was originally published June 22, 2026 at 7:37 AM.