Officers are immune from liability in lawsuits alleging use of deadly force against fleeing suspects unless it is “beyond debate” that a shooting was unjustified and clearly unreasonable, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. The decision, handed down Monday, will make it more difficult to successfully sue police for use of deadly force in pursuit of a fleeing suspect who poses a danger to the safety of other officers or the populace.

In Mullenix v. Luna, which was decided by an 8-1 vote, the justices dismissed an excessive force suit against a Texas police officer who ignored his supervisor’s warning and took a high-powered rifle to a highway overpass to shoot at an approaching vehicle. The officer alleged he hoped to stop the car, but instead shot and killed the driver. The ruling continues a trend from the Supreme Court of giving police the benefit of the doubt when they are engaged in a potentially dangerous situation in the field. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the majority’s sanctioning of a “shoot first, think later” approach to policing.

The decision comes at a time where attention is focused on police shootings and pressure is mounting to prosecute officers involved in inappropriate uses of force. In cases where officers are not prosecuted, families of victims often sue in federal court, alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure. The standard the Court reiterated here will make it more difficult for those lawsuits to proceed in situations where the shooting is arguably reasonable or justified, granting officers more freedom to use their discretion in dangerous situations involving fleeing suspects.