The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc in *Ashly Romero v. City of Lansing, Michigan* (6th Cir. 2026), a federal civil rights lawsuit stemming from the death of Stephen Romero and allegations of excessive force by city police officers. The February 12 order revealed significant divisions among the circuit's judges regarding police accountability and qualified immunity doctrine.
The case, designated for publication under Sixth Circuit rules, involves a Section 1983 civil rights claim brought by Ashly Romero as personal representative of Stephen Romero's estate. The lawsuit targets the City of Lansing as a municipal corporation along with Officers Donovan Moore and Jeff Kurtz in their individual capacities, alleging constitutional violations in connection with Romero's death.
Originally decided by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids under Judge Hala Y. Jarbou, the case proceeded through the federal appellate process where it attracted significant attention from the full Sixth Circuit. The petition for en banc review sought to have all active judges on the circuit reconsider the panel's initial decision, a procedural step typically reserved for cases involving exceptional importance or conflicts with existing precedent.
The court's order denying en banc review prompted multiple judicial opinions that illuminate the ongoing tensions within federal appellate courts over police use of force cases. Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder Ritz authored a separate opinion concurring in the denial, joined by Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore, indicating their agreement with the three-judge panel's original handling of the case.
However, the denial faced opposition from Circuit Judge Richard Allen Griffin, who wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Circuit Judge Amul Thapar. Their dissent from the denial suggests they believed the case warranted full circuit review, potentially indicating disagreement with how the panel applied existing precedent regarding municipal liability or individual officer accountability.
Most notably, Circuit Judges Amul Thapar and Chad Readler co-authored an extensive separate opinion spanning 10 pages, joined by Judges Griffin, Bush, Larsen, Nalbandian, Readler, and Murphy. This substantial judicial writing, involving seven of the circuit's judges, signals the case touched on fundamental questions of federal civil rights enforcement and police accountability that continue to divide the federal judiciary.
The underlying lawsuit represents the type of Section 1983 civil rights action that has become increasingly prominent in federal courts following high-profile police use of force incidents nationwide. These cases typically allege that law enforcement officers violated clearly established constitutional rights, often focusing on Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure and Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantees.
Municipal liability claims like those against the City of Lansing require plaintiffs to demonstrate that unconstitutional actions resulted from official policy, custom, or deliberate indifference by municipal policymakers. Individual officer liability claims must overcome qualified immunity doctrine, which protects government officials from civil damages unless they violated clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known.
The case's recommendation for publication under Sixth Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 32.1(b) indicates the court views it as establishing important precedent for future police accountability cases within the circuit's jurisdiction, which includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Published opinions carry precedential weight and guide how district courts and future appellate panels handle similar constitutional claims.
Representation in the case highlights the specialized nature of civil rights litigation, with appellant Ashly Romero represented by attorney Robert G. Kamenec of Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington, P.C., a Southfield firm known for high-profile civil rights and personal injury cases. The defendants secured representation from Michael T. Berger of Rosati Schultz Joppich & Amtsbuechler PC in Farmington Hills, a firm that regularly handles municipal defense matters.
The extensive judicial commentary accompanying the en banc denial reflects broader national debates over police reform, qualified immunity doctrine, and the proper scope of federal civil rights enforcement. Federal appellate courts increasingly grapple with balancing law enforcement officer protection against accountability for alleged constitutional violations.
While the Sixth Circuit's denial of en banc review means the original three-judge panel decision stands as circuit precedent, the case could potentially proceed to the Supreme Court if parties seek certiorari review. The high court has shown selective interest in police accountability cases, particularly those involving qualified immunity applications or municipal liability standards.
The *Romero* decision joins a growing body of Sixth Circuit precedent addressing police use of force under federal civil rights law. As courts nationwide continue wrestling with these issues, the case's published status ensures it will influence how future excessive force claims are evaluated within the circuit's four-state jurisdiction.
For the Romero family and Lansing community, the appellate court's action represents a significant procedural milestone in ongoing litigation seeking accountability for Stephen Romero's death and alleged police misconduct.