The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to block a federal excessive force lawsuit against a former Los Angeles Police Department officer involved in a fatal shooting in 2020. The case concerns the May 2020 incident in which Officer Toni McBride shot Daniel Hernandez, a man armed with a knife, following a dangerous encounter near downtown Los Angeles.

The dismissal of the city attorney’s appeal means the case can proceed to trial. The Los Angeles city attorney’s office had sought Supreme Court intervention after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that a jury should determine whether McBride’s use of force exceeded constitutional limits. The appeals court’s 6-5 decision found that while the first four shots McBride fired were justified, the final two shots that killed Hernandez raised questions about the reasonableness of her actions.

The incident unfolded after Hernandez allegedly drove a speeding truck into several vehicles. He exited the truck and advanced toward McBride while wielding a knife. According to court records, McBride repeatedly commanded Hernandez to drop the weapon as she fired a total of six shots over six seconds. Federal judges in California previously ruled that the initial shots were reasonable but questioned the necessity of the last two shots fired after Hernandez had fallen to the ground.

The Ninth Circuit majority reasoned that in the brief pause—lasting approximately one second—between the fourth and fifth shots, McBride had an opportunity to reassess whether the suspect continued to pose an imminent threat, suggesting that use of lethal force might no longer have been justified. This view allowed for the possibility that McBride’s actions could be deemed excessive, warranting examination by a jury.

The Los Angeles city attorney’s office disagreed, arguing before the Supreme Court that the Ninth Circuit failed to properly consider “the totality of circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.” City attorneys contended the appeals court’s decision undermines the principle that officers are permitted a margin for reasonable error in fast-moving, life-threatening situations.

In opposition, UC Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky, representing the Hernandez family, urged the high court to decline review and allow the lawsuit to proceed. He emphasized that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling simply allows a jury to weigh the facts and determine the legality of McBride’s actions.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene came without comment, despite the case touching on broader discussions about qualified immunity and police use of force. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito dissented from the decision to leave the Ninth Circuit’s ruling intact.

The ruling marks a significant moment in ongoing debates over law enforcement accountability and the boundaries of constitutional police conduct. The case will now return to lower courts for further proceedings to determine the merits of the excessive force claim against the former officer.