What evidence and arguments did Ashli Babbitt’s family present in their civil wrongful-death lawsuit, and how did the DOJ respond?
Executive summary
Ashli Babbitt’s family sued the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging that a plainclothes Capitol Police lieutenant negligently shot and killed Babbitt without warning or attempt to de‑escalate, and that the Capitol Police failed in supervision and retention; the DOJ — which had earlier declined criminal charges — ultimately reached a roughly $5 million settlement to resolve the civil claim .
1. The core legal claim: negligent use of deadly force and no warning
The complaint filed by Babbitt’s estate alleged that Lt. Michael Byrd “negligently discharged” his firearm, unholstering and pointing it before he had positively identified the threat, and that he failed to give any verbal commands or warnings before firing as Babbitt climbed through a broken window into the Speaker’s Lobby area ; the suit framed that conduct as an unreasonable use of deadly force and sought $30 million in damages under wrongful‑death and negligence theories [1].
2. Broader negligence theories: supervisory and institutional responsibility
Beyond the single shot, the complaint pinned liability on the U.S. Capitol Police, the Capitol Police Board and Congress — arguing those entities breached duties by retaining, promoting, or failing to discipline officers allegedly “prone to behave in a dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner,” and by failing to supervise or train personnel to prevent such outcomes ; the suit named multiple officers and employees in claims that included assault and battery plus various negligence counts .
3. Evidence marshaled by the family: narrative, video context, and witness claims
The family pointed to video from Jan. 6 showing Babbitt climbing through the broken door and argued she was unarmed, posed no threat, and had her hands raised when shot — framing the footage as support for the claim that no lethal force was justified and that the officer offered no warnings ; the complaint also relied on Capitol Police directives about when weapons should be at “low ready,” accusing the officer of violating those protocols .
4. DOJ’s prior criminal decision and the government’s defensive posture
The Justice Department conducted a criminal investigation in 2021 and concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Lt. Byrd criminally, effectively clearing him of criminal wrongdoing at that time — a fact cited repeatedly by Capitol Police and their supporters in defending the officer’s conduct . Officials emphasized those findings as they navigated the separate civil litigation .
5. Settlement, reactions, and competing narratives
Despite the earlier declination to prosecute, attorneys for the DOJ reached a settlement in principle and then finalized an agreement to pay the family roughly $5 million to resolve the $30 million suit, according to multiple media reports and local outlets ; Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger publicly expressed disappointment and disagreement with the DOJ’s decision to settle, framing the 2021 findings as evidence that law enforcement had not broken the law .
6. What the settlement does — and does not — resolve
The settlement resolved the family’s civil claims against the government under the FTCA and ended active litigation, but publicly available reports indicate detailed terms were not initially released and that the settlement does not equate to a criminal finding against the officer — the DOJ’s prior declination remains a separate factual and legal record . Reporting also shows competing agendas: advocacy and political actors have used Babbitt’s death to press broader narratives about Jan. 6, while DOJ’s settlement calculus is opaque in public filings cited by news outlets .