What were the legal arguments in the wrongful-death suit that led to the DOJ’s nearly $5 million settlement with Babbitt’s family?

1. The plaintiffs’ legal theory: wrongful death plus assault, battery and negligence

The complaint pressed a classic wrongful-death framework aimed at government liability: it alleged that the shooting constituted an unlawful killing actionable under tort law and supplemented that core wrongful-death count with claims for assault and battery, negligence, negligent training, supervision, discipline and retention, and survival causes of action — the kind of layered pleading that seeks both individual fault and institutional responsibility ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The factual hooks plaintiffs emphasized to support legal claims

Plaintiffs built the legal case around the video of the shooting and contemporaneous accounts, arguing that Babbitt was attempting to climb through a broken window into a barricaded door near the Speaker’s Lobby when she was shot and contending the officer’s decision to open fire was negligent; some accounts and the suit alleged her hands were raised when struck, language the family used to portray her as “ambushed” ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

3. Government defenses and the weight of prior reviews

The United States and Capitol Police had defended the shooting in multiple reviews, and a Department of Justice inquiry and internal processes had cleared the officer of criminal or disciplinary wrongdoing — factual determinations the government relied on to argue immunity or absence of actionable fault, creating a substantial legal hurdle for plaintiffs seeking to convert an administrative clearance into civil liability ^{[8] [4] [6]}.

4. Procedural posture and tactical litigation moves that shaped settlement leverage

The case was filed in California then transferred to federal court in Washington, D.C.; a trial date had been set and judges pushed for expedited resolution, while disputes over counsel’s contingency fees and competing retainer claims surfaced and briefly delayed matters, underscoring transactional pressure on both sides to resolve rather than litigate to verdict ^{[1] [9]}. Judicial Watch and the estate sought sizable damages ($30 million) but the government engaged in settlement talks and ultimately negotiated a stipulation that resolved “each and every claim” ^{[2] [7]}.

5. The settlement’s legal terms and limits on what it establishes

The announced compromise and release specified a payment of roughly $4.975 million in exchange for a broad release of claims arising from the incident, language that is standard to end liability exposure — but settlement documents and the public statements make clear a monetary compromise is not a judicial finding of liability and does not overturn the prior administrative conclusions clearing the officer ^{[3] [2] [8]}. Court filings and news reporting indicate the exact terms were negotiated as a “Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release,” resolving wrongful death, assault and battery and negligence claims ^{[2] [3]}.

6. Why the government likely agreed to settle despite prior clearances — legal and practical calculus

Reporting shows the DOJ reached a pragmatic decision to end litigation rather than press a contested federal trial, a calculus commonly driven by uncertainty of jury outcomes in high-profile cases, the costs of prolonged discovery and trial, and the desire to avoid further operational and political distraction — while sources also note the administration’s posture changed after prior reviews cleared the officer, underscoring that settlement reflects risk management rather than an admission of wrongdoing ^{[8] [4] [10]}. Precise internal reasoning is not publicly documented in the sources provided, so a definitive statement about DOJ motives beyond standard litigation risk calculations cannot be made from these records ^{[2] [10]}.