In Kisela v. Hughes, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a police officer who shot a woman four times after she approached another woman with a large kitchen knife. The court held that Officer Andrew Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate "clearly established" law at the time of the shooting in 2010. Amy Hughes, who survived but sustained serious injuries from the shooting, sued Kisela for using excessive force against her and violating her Fourth Amendment rights. However, according to Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion, it wasn't clear that Hughes posed an immediate threat or that less intrusive means would have safely resolved the situation when viewed from an officer's perspective on scene; thus making Kisela’s use of deadly force reasonable under existing precedent.

In the dissenting opinion for Kisela v. Hughes, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, argued that the majority's decision was not only incorrect but also an unnecessary and inappropriate resolution of a factual dispute better left to a jury. They contended that Amy Hughes had a constitutional right not to be shot without justification and that Officer Kisela's use of deadly force violated this right under clearly established law at the time of the shooting. The dissenters pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies about whether Hughes posed an immediate threat justifying lethal force. They criticized the majority for granting qualified immunity too readily, thereby shielding officers from accountability when they unreasonably use excessive force. This case should have gone to trial rather than being decided summarily on appeal because it involved disputed facts regarding whether or not there was an immediate threat warranting deadly force.