Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a weekly newsletter that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law—and how the law is pushing back.

On Monday, without explanation, the Supreme Court tossed out a decision that would have provided some measure of justice to the family of a Black man from Las Vegas who was killed by the police. That earlier decision had stated what should be obvious: It is illegal for cops to suffocate and kill a civilian, especially when that civilian is unarmed, not suspected of any crime, and is in the middle of a mental health episode. The justification for the Supreme Court’s 6–3 Monday order, which can only be gleaned from another recent shadow docket case that laid the groundwork for this travesty, is as weak as it is violent.

Roy Scott was a 65-year-old Black man who called the police for medical help. Once they arrived, Scott told the officers that he had paranoid schizophrenia and was having active hallucinations. In subduing him, two officers held him down for several minutes, forcing his arms down and holding him on his back, terrifying Scott. Then the officers flipped Scott face down and placed their bodyweight on Scott’s back and neck for another couple of minutes. By the time the cops got off him, he was unresponsive. Soon after, he was declared dead.

Scott’s daughter and estate sued the officers under the Civil Rights Act, also called Section 1983. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Scott, holding that a jury could reasonably find that the officers used excessive force. It was this decision that the Supreme Court vacated on Monday in an unsigned one-paragraph order, over the three liberals’ dissent.

To understand the basis of the court’s Monday decision, the only hint provided is the single citation they........

© Slate