- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 37,822
U.S. Supreme Court insulates federal agents from accountability
https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...tes-federal-agents-accountability-2022-06-10/
Hassan Kanu (10 June 2022)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday made it nearly impossible for Americans to sue federal law enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights, further narrowing the already limited path to hold U.S. officials accountable for even egregious misuse of their authority.
The court’s ruling grants actual absolute immunity to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents. That’s nearly 20,000 officers whose work sometimes involves detaining migrant children and flying drones over protests to help with “situational awareness.” Border patrol agents have more power than local police in many contexts, and they engage in the full range of ordinary law enforcement activity -- often far away from the border.
The court in Egbert v. Boule held that CBP officer Erik Egbert can’t be sued for allegedly throwing Robert Boule to the ground and injuring him while trying to arrest another man at Boule’s bed-and-breakfast. Egbert allegedly retaliated after Boule filed an excessive force complaint by asking the Internal Revenue Service and various other agencies to investigate him.
“Congress is better positioned to create remedies in the border-security context,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote. The 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority.
The court further narrowed a more restrictive standard it established just five years ago, holding that courts can now dismiss lawsuits against federal officials if there “is any rational reason (even one) to think that Congress is better suited to ‘weigh the costs and benefits’” of allowing the suit.
The ruling represents a grave threat to civil liberties: It sets a standard lenient and vague enough to be construed in many cases as blanket immunity for law enforcement officers at the FBI, DEA and ICE, for example.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote a concurring opinion that in fact urges making it impossible to sue federal officers, said candidly that “the Court’s real messages run deeper than its case-specific analysis” (Justice Clarence Thomas has also said that he would close court doors to lawsuits against federal officials altogether).
“If if the only question is whether a court is ‘better equipped’ than Congress to weigh the value of a new cause of action, surely the right answer will always be no,” Gorsuch said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in the dissent that the court didn’t actually overrule the precedent that (very rarely) allows constitutional lawsuits against federal officials, although she added that it nonetheless strips countless people of their rights.
To be sure, Supreme Court conservatives have consistently rejected most lawsuits against federal officials for violations of Constitutional rights since the court held in a 1971 case called Bivens that citizens could bring those lawsuits.
Last year, a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge appointed by President Donald Trump described Bivens as a “relic.” The precedent basically means, "If you wear a federal badge, you can inflict excessive force on someone with little fear of liability,” Judge Don Willet wrote.
The conservative justices’ most recent ruling veers even further into dangerous territory. The ruling gives border patrol agents near unfettered authority to search, seize and detain Americans, without any consequences if they overstep their authority or even kill someone. And it signals to lower courts that other federal officers should also be absolutely immune from suit.
[...]
https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...tes-federal-agents-accountability-2022-06-10/
Hassan Kanu (10 June 2022)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday made it nearly impossible for Americans to sue federal law enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights, further narrowing the already limited path to hold U.S. officials accountable for even egregious misuse of their authority.
The court’s ruling grants actual absolute immunity to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents. That’s nearly 20,000 officers whose work sometimes involves detaining migrant children and flying drones over protests to help with “situational awareness.” Border patrol agents have more power than local police in many contexts, and they engage in the full range of ordinary law enforcement activity -- often far away from the border.
The court in Egbert v. Boule held that CBP officer Erik Egbert can’t be sued for allegedly throwing Robert Boule to the ground and injuring him while trying to arrest another man at Boule’s bed-and-breakfast. Egbert allegedly retaliated after Boule filed an excessive force complaint by asking the Internal Revenue Service and various other agencies to investigate him.
“Congress is better positioned to create remedies in the border-security context,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote. The 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority.
The court further narrowed a more restrictive standard it established just five years ago, holding that courts can now dismiss lawsuits against federal officials if there “is any rational reason (even one) to think that Congress is better suited to ‘weigh the costs and benefits’” of allowing the suit.
The ruling represents a grave threat to civil liberties: It sets a standard lenient and vague enough to be construed in many cases as blanket immunity for law enforcement officers at the FBI, DEA and ICE, for example.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote a concurring opinion that in fact urges making it impossible to sue federal officers, said candidly that “the Court’s real messages run deeper than its case-specific analysis” (Justice Clarence Thomas has also said that he would close court doors to lawsuits against federal officials altogether).
“If if the only question is whether a court is ‘better equipped’ than Congress to weigh the value of a new cause of action, surely the right answer will always be no,” Gorsuch said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in the dissent that the court didn’t actually overrule the precedent that (very rarely) allows constitutional lawsuits against federal officials, although she added that it nonetheless strips countless people of their rights.
To be sure, Supreme Court conservatives have consistently rejected most lawsuits against federal officials for violations of Constitutional rights since the court held in a 1971 case called Bivens that citizens could bring those lawsuits.
Last year, a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge appointed by President Donald Trump described Bivens as a “relic.” The precedent basically means, "If you wear a federal badge, you can inflict excessive force on someone with little fear of liability,” Judge Don Willet wrote.
The conservative justices’ most recent ruling veers even further into dangerous territory. The ruling gives border patrol agents near unfettered authority to search, seize and detain Americans, without any consequences if they overstep their authority or even kill someone. And it signals to lower courts that other federal officers should also be absolutely immune from suit.
[...]
