Two former Oakland police officers are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step into a years-long legal fight over a 2022 ghost chase that left a bystander dead and several relatives injured. At stake is how far federal constitutional protections stretch when police pursuits end in tragedy for people who were never part of the chase.
What the officers asked the Supreme Court
In October, former officers Walid Abdelaziz and Jimmy Marin-Coronel filed a petition asking the high court to review a May 2025 ruling by the Ninth Circuit, according to the U.S. Supreme Court docket and the petition posted online. Their filing argues that bystanders injured during a police chase cannot bring a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim unless they can show officers acted with a specific intent to harm those bystanders themselves, rather than only the fleeing driver. The petition asks the justices to reverse the Ninth Circuit on that point.
The 9th Circuit ruling
A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel in May 2025 upheld the denial of qualified immunity, finding that the family’s complaint plausibly alleged the officers engaged in a reckless, unauthorized pursuit and then failed to summon or render aid. The 2-1 published opinion, available on Justia, drew a sharp dissent warning it created a new standard. Legal coverage described the decision as a rare rejection of qualified immunity in a police pursuit case (Law360).
The crash and the family's lawsuit
The deadly crash dates back to June 2022, when a fleeing vehicle slammed into the area near a taco truck on International Boulevard, hitting parked cars and motorcycles. The impact killed 28-year-old Lolomania "Lolo" Soakai and injured several family members. Local coverage and court filings say the officers pursued the driver without lights or sirens, did not immediately call for medical help and were later overheard on body-worn camera video saying, "I hope he dies," according to KTVU and coverage by the San Francisco Chronicle. Soakai’s family responded with a wrongful-death lawsuit against the city, while the driver was later charged with vehicular manslaughter.
Who’s backing the officers
The case has drawn attention from public-entity insurers and risk pools that worry about the financial fallout. The California Association of Joint Powers Authorities filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case, warning that the Ninth Circuit’s approach could expose state and local governments to broad liability and mounting defense costs (California Association of Joint Powers Authorities). The officers’ petition likewise points to a split among federal circuits and asks the justices to settle the conflict.
Settlement talks, trial date and the city's role
While lawyers argue over constitutional standards in Washington, the underlying wrongful-death case is still moving in federal court in the Bay Area. The city of Oakland and Soakai’s family have agreed to start settlement talks by March 3, and a trial is set for Aug. 18, according to KTVU. The city attorney’s office told the station that Oakland is not formally part of the officers’ Supreme Court petition, but noted that California law generally requires cities to defend and indemnify employees for acts within the scope of their jobs. That could leave taxpayers covering much of the legal bill.
Legal implications
If the Supreme Court takes the case and agrees with the officers, it could sharply limit when bystanders may use the Fourteenth Amendment to sue police after high-speed chases, undercutting the Ninth Circuit’s use of state-created-danger and purpose-to-harm theories. If the court refuses review, the Ninth Circuit’s decision would remain binding in the western states it covers and could open the door to more bystander suits in similar pursuit cases, a scenario state risk pools warn would drive up litigation and costs.
The petition, filed in October 2025, has been distributed for conference, and the respondents filed an opposition brief in early January, according to the U.S. Supreme Court docket. Until the justices decide whether to hear the case, the family’s civil lawsuit continues in the Northern District of California, with settlement and pretrial deadlines still on the calendar.
