ICE officers question a woman about her son's whereabouts on August 12, 2015 in Riverside, California. (Photo: Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
Jun 09, 2022
A ruling by the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday "will have far-reaching consequences" for people who accuse federal agents of violating their constitutional rights, the ACLU warned after the court ruled against a man who wanted to sue a U.S. Border Patrol agent who entered his property without a warrant and used excessive force.
"This ruling leaves victims of police violence by CBP agents without an effective remedy for justice and puts everyone's liberty at risk."
The court ruled 6-3 in Egbert v. Boule that Congress must decide whether the plaintiff can sue the government over the alleged violation of his rights--a decision which Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion threatens to block nearly all civil suits against federal agents.
"The court's decision today ignores our repeated recognition of the importance of Bivens actions, particularly in the Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure context, and closes the door to Bivens suits by many who will suffer serious constitutional violations at the hands of federal agents," Sotomayor wrote, referring to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the 1971 ruling in which the court found federal agents can be sued in some cases even if Congress has not explicitly authorized the challenge.
Wednesday's ruling pertained toa case stemming from Washington state innkeeper Robert Boule's attempt to sue border agent Erik Egbert.
In 2014, Egbert entered Boule's property without a warrant to investigate a guest from Turkey. Boule accused the agent of pushing him to the ground and later retaliating when Boule reported the incident to Egbert's supervisors.
Journalist Mark Joseph Stern of Slate said the court's conservative majority knows legislation that would allow an individual to sue federal agents for constitutional rights violations is unlikely and is thus effectively "slamming the door on accountability for federal law enforcement."
\u201cWhen Thomas and Gorsuch say "hey, Congress can just pass a new law allowing individuals to sue the feds for violating their constitutional rights," they know\u2014and we all know\u2014that it'll likely never happen. They are slamming the door on accountability for federal law enforcement.\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1654696947
The court did not overrule Bivens, but further restricted people's ability to seek redress when they accuse federal agents of violating their rights. In 2020, the court ruled that the family of a Mexican teenager fatally shot by the Border Patrol agent could not sue over their child's killing, and in 2017 it ruled that government officials are not liable for the alleged mistreatment of noncitizens who are detained by the United States.
Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested in his opinion that while Bivens has not been overruled, future claims against federal agents may not be viable.
Thousands of Border Patrol agents have now been "absolutely immunized from liability," said Sotomayor, "no matter how egregious the misconduct or resultant injury."
Lawyers for Egbert had argued that allowing Boule's claim to proceed would undermine the ability of Border Patrol agents to conduct searches as part of immigration enforcement, while Sotomayor noted that the case "does not remotely implicate national security."
The ACLU warned that the ruling will leave the country's largest federal agency--U.S. Customs and Border Protection--even less accountable to the public.
\u201cUS Customs and Border Protection is by far the largest federal policy agency, and it has an appalling record of harm.\n\nThis ruling leaves victims of police violence by CBP agents without an effective remedy for justice and puts everyone\u2019s liberty at risk.\u201d— ACLU (@ACLU) 1654721382
"This precedent endangers us all," the group said.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A ruling by the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday "will have far-reaching consequences" for people who accuse federal agents of violating their constitutional rights, the ACLU warned after the court ruled against a man who wanted to sue a U.S. Border Patrol agent who entered his property without a warrant and used excessive force.
"This ruling leaves victims of police violence by CBP agents without an effective remedy for justice and puts everyone's liberty at risk."
The court ruled 6-3 in Egbert v. Boule that Congress must decide whether the plaintiff can sue the government over the alleged violation of his rights--a decision which Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion threatens to block nearly all civil suits against federal agents.
"The court's decision today ignores our repeated recognition of the importance of Bivens actions, particularly in the Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure context, and closes the door to Bivens suits by many who will suffer serious constitutional violations at the hands of federal agents," Sotomayor wrote, referring to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the 1971 ruling in which the court found federal agents can be sued in some cases even if Congress has not explicitly authorized the challenge.
Wednesday's ruling pertained toa case stemming from Washington state innkeeper Robert Boule's attempt to sue border agent Erik Egbert.
In 2014, Egbert entered Boule's property without a warrant to investigate a guest from Turkey. Boule accused the agent of pushing him to the ground and later retaliating when Boule reported the incident to Egbert's supervisors.
Journalist Mark Joseph Stern of Slate said the court's conservative majority knows legislation that would allow an individual to sue federal agents for constitutional rights violations is unlikely and is thus effectively "slamming the door on accountability for federal law enforcement."
\u201cWhen Thomas and Gorsuch say "hey, Congress can just pass a new law allowing individuals to sue the feds for violating their constitutional rights," they know\u2014and we all know\u2014that it'll likely never happen. They are slamming the door on accountability for federal law enforcement.\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1654696947
The court did not overrule Bivens, but further restricted people's ability to seek redress when they accuse federal agents of violating their rights. In 2020, the court ruled that the family of a Mexican teenager fatally shot by the Border Patrol agent could not sue over their child's killing, and in 2017 it ruled that government officials are not liable for the alleged mistreatment of noncitizens who are detained by the United States.
Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested in his opinion that while Bivens has not been overruled, future claims against federal agents may not be viable.
Thousands of Border Patrol agents have now been "absolutely immunized from liability," said Sotomayor, "no matter how egregious the misconduct or resultant injury."
Lawyers for Egbert had argued that allowing Boule's claim to proceed would undermine the ability of Border Patrol agents to conduct searches as part of immigration enforcement, while Sotomayor noted that the case "does not remotely implicate national security."
The ACLU warned that the ruling will leave the country's largest federal agency--U.S. Customs and Border Protection--even less accountable to the public.
\u201cUS Customs and Border Protection is by far the largest federal policy agency, and it has an appalling record of harm.\n\nThis ruling leaves victims of police violence by CBP agents without an effective remedy for justice and puts everyone\u2019s liberty at risk.\u201d— ACLU (@ACLU) 1654721382
"This precedent endangers us all," the group said.
A ruling by the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday "will have far-reaching consequences" for people who accuse federal agents of violating their constitutional rights, the ACLU warned after the court ruled against a man who wanted to sue a U.S. Border Patrol agent who entered his property without a warrant and used excessive force.
"This ruling leaves victims of police violence by CBP agents without an effective remedy for justice and puts everyone's liberty at risk."
The court ruled 6-3 in Egbert v. Boule that Congress must decide whether the plaintiff can sue the government over the alleged violation of his rights--a decision which Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion threatens to block nearly all civil suits against federal agents.
"The court's decision today ignores our repeated recognition of the importance of Bivens actions, particularly in the Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure context, and closes the door to Bivens suits by many who will suffer serious constitutional violations at the hands of federal agents," Sotomayor wrote, referring to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the 1971 ruling in which the court found federal agents can be sued in some cases even if Congress has not explicitly authorized the challenge.
Wednesday's ruling pertained toa case stemming from Washington state innkeeper Robert Boule's attempt to sue border agent Erik Egbert.
In 2014, Egbert entered Boule's property without a warrant to investigate a guest from Turkey. Boule accused the agent of pushing him to the ground and later retaliating when Boule reported the incident to Egbert's supervisors.
Journalist Mark Joseph Stern of Slate said the court's conservative majority knows legislation that would allow an individual to sue federal agents for constitutional rights violations is unlikely and is thus effectively "slamming the door on accountability for federal law enforcement."
\u201cWhen Thomas and Gorsuch say "hey, Congress can just pass a new law allowing individuals to sue the feds for violating their constitutional rights," they know\u2014and we all know\u2014that it'll likely never happen. They are slamming the door on accountability for federal law enforcement.\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1654696947
The court did not overrule Bivens, but further restricted people's ability to seek redress when they accuse federal agents of violating their rights. In 2020, the court ruled that the family of a Mexican teenager fatally shot by the Border Patrol agent could not sue over their child's killing, and in 2017 it ruled that government officials are not liable for the alleged mistreatment of noncitizens who are detained by the United States.
Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested in his opinion that while Bivens has not been overruled, future claims against federal agents may not be viable.
Thousands of Border Patrol agents have now been "absolutely immunized from liability," said Sotomayor, "no matter how egregious the misconduct or resultant injury."
Lawyers for Egbert had argued that allowing Boule's claim to proceed would undermine the ability of Border Patrol agents to conduct searches as part of immigration enforcement, while Sotomayor noted that the case "does not remotely implicate national security."
The ACLU warned that the ruling will leave the country's largest federal agency--U.S. Customs and Border Protection--even less accountable to the public.
\u201cUS Customs and Border Protection is by far the largest federal policy agency, and it has an appalling record of harm.\n\nThis ruling leaves victims of police violence by CBP agents without an effective remedy for justice and puts everyone\u2019s liberty at risk.\u201d— ACLU (@ACLU) 1654721382
"This precedent endangers us all," the group said.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.