INDIANAPOLIS, November 9, 2026 — The National Police Association (NPA) is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to confront a campaign of litigation that threatens the ability of police officers across America to preserve public order. In its amicus brief in Hollamon v. County of Wright, NPA urges the justices to establish clear constitutional standards for crowd dispersal and curb the use of frivolous Fourth Amendment lawsuits to punish officers for doing their duty.
The stakes reach every officer who wears the badge. A ruling establishing the distinction NPA seeks would give officers nationwide a clearer legal foundation when called upon to disperse unlawful crowds. That protection would extend beyond the defendants in this case, benefiting officers in departments large and small who may confront the same danger and the same threat of litigation.
The case arose at a Minnesota pipeline construction site, where demonstrators attempted to breach fencing despite police warnings. Officers used pepperballs to repel their advance. The constitutional question concerns whether force intended to drive people away, rather than restrain them, constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
An order to disperse tells people to leave. An arrest takes them into custody. The distinction should be plain. Yet conflicting judicial approaches have left officers facing uncertainty over whether contact from less-lethal munitions during crowd dispersal amounts to a seizure.
NPA warns that the anti-police lobby exploits that uncertainty to press for restrictions one favorable ruling at a time. Each new lawsuit offers another chance to narrow the options available to officers confronting unlawful crowds. Police remain responsible for protecting the public while activists ask the courts to deprive them of the practical means to carry out that responsibility.
For the officer on the street, the consequences are personal. A lawsuit can hang over a career for years. An officer facing a surging crowd must make decisions in seconds, while lawyers have months to construct their accusations. America cannot reasonably demand decisive police protection while allowing lawful crowd control to become a perpetual invitation to litigation.
“Police officers should not have to spend years defending themselves in court for taking lawful action to protect the public,” said NPA President Ed Hutchison. “We are fighting for every officer who could be ordered into a dangerous crowd tomorrow. The men and women holding that line deserve to know where the law stands. Their protection should not depend on which court hears the next activist lawsuit.”
NPA asks the Court to hold that crowd dispersal without an intent to restrain is governed by substantive due process standards rather than the Fourth Amendment. Under that approach, conscience-shocking misconduct would remain subject to constitutional challenge. The brief expressly recognizes protection against force inflicted maliciously for the purpose of causing harm.
The ruling NPA seeks would preserve that accountability while giving officers a workable rule for lawful crowd dispersal. Departments could train to a clearer standard. Officers could act with greater confidence. Communities would benefit when their police can confront unlawful conduct without uncertainty over which constitutional standard governs their response.
Every officer has a stake in stopping the steady erosion of lawful police authority through litigation. NPA is asking the Supreme Court to settle this question for the entire profession.
The National Police Association is represented by James L. Buchal of Murphy & Buchal LLP in Portland, Oregon. The full brief is available on the Supreme Court docket under case No. 26-465 and here.
The National Police Association (NPA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit fighting for law enforcement through education, advocacy, and the courts. For more information, visit NationalPolice.org.
###