SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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)
'Endangers Us All': Supreme Court Ruling Shields Border Agent From Excessive Force Lawsuit
The ruling leaves thousands of Border Patrol agents "absolutely immunized from liability," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "no matter how egregious the misconduct or resultant injury."
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 to a 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."
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.
"This precedent endangers us all," the group said.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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 to a 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."
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.
"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 to a 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."
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.
"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.