Skip to main content

No. 25-1108October Term 2025Before Arguments

Docket 25-1108October Term 2025 (2025–2026)

Christopher Zook, et al., Petitioners v. Scott Fuqua

from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Case status

Current stage
Before Arguments
Latest event
Accepted by the Court
Decision timing
No window until argument is scheduled.
Case AcceptedUpcoming
Arguments AheadUpcoming
Decision ReleasedUpcoming
What it's about

from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Question presented

1. Whether a district court may, or must, consider objective video evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage when that evidence is central to the complaint and blatantly contradicts or utterly discredits the allegations of a plaintiff's complaint in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force action, given a circuit split between the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits (which permit consideration of such videos) and the Tenth Circuit (which does not)? 2. Whether a § 1983 plaintiff can satisfy the plausibility standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), by strategically omitting known facts, here, that the decedent fled the police in a reckless manner by vehicle, fired a weapon at officers just prior to being shot, and was running toward an occupied civilian vehicle at the time of the shooting, when including those facts would defeat the claim? 3. Whether Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), standing alone, clearly establishes a Fourth Amendment violation sufficient to defeat qualified immunity at the pleading stage in a factually complex officer-involved shooting in which the decedent had moments earlier fired a weapon at officers, ignored repeated commands, and fled toward an occupied civilian vehicle, contrary to this Court's repeated instructions that clearly established law must be defined with specificity and particularity to the facts of the case?

Case path

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit / Accepted by the Court

Area

Criminal Procedure

Timing

Expected by late June 2026, if argued this term

The Court granted review but has not yet scheduled oral argument. Once argued, the median case reaches a decision in 94 days. Nearly all cases are decided by the end of the term in which they are argued.

The Court does not announce decision dates in advance.Argument and decision days

Briefing

What it's about

This pending case asks whether judges may or must watch objective video at the motion-to-dismiss stage in a Section 1983 police excessive-force suit when the video allegedly conflicts with the complaint. It also asks whether a plaintiff can leave out known facts and still meet federal pleading rules, and whether Tennessee v. Garner alone clearly puts officers on notice in a fact-specific shooting case.

Argument

No oral argument is scheduled, and no Supreme Court decision is available yet. The petition asks the Court to review a Tenth Circuit approach that, according to the filing, differs from the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits on early use of video evidence.

Impact

The answer could shape how quickly police shooting cases move forward or get dismissed. For example, it matters to officers and families if a judge can rely on video early instead of accepting only the complaint's version of events.

What is at stake in Zook v. Fuqua?

The Court is being asked whether judges can use video early in a police excessive-force case. It also concerns omitted facts and qualified immunity.

Who could be affected by the outcome in this case?

Police officers, people suing over police shootings, and lower court judges could all be affected. The ruling could change which cases survive the first stage.

What happens next in Zook v. Fuqua?

The justices must decide whether to grant certiorari, which means agreeing to hear the case. If they do, the Court would later set briefing and argument.

Grounding

Grounding
Primary materials plus reporting.
Note
Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
Checked
Jul 17, 2026
Primary materials5
Context reporting3