U.S. Supreme Court Has Made It Practically Impossible To Sue a Rights-Violating Federal Officer

[Democide]

SCOTUS Has Made It Practically Impossible To Sue a Rights-Violating Federal Officer

11 November 2021

Several recent Supreme Court decisions have made it practically impossible to sue a federal officer over alleged violations of constitutional rights. Now the Court has agreed to hear a case that could either slow this sorry trend or continue it. The case is Egbert v. Boule. Robert Boule is the owner of a bed-and-breakfast in Washington state near the Canadian border. Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert sought to question one of Boule's guests, a Turkish national, about his immigration status. Boule told the agent to get off of his property, but Egbert refused to leave. Egbert then allegedly shoved Boule ...

SCOTUS Has Made It Practically Impossible To Sue a Rights-Violating Federal Officer

A new case asks whether a Border Patrol agent may be sued for alleged First and Fourth Amendment violations.

reason.com

 

[Democide]

A Border Patrol Agent Assaulted Him and Violated His First Amendment Rights. He May Never Get To Sue.
It is almost impossible to hold a rogue federal officer accountable. The Supreme Court may make it even harder.

28 January 2022

Federal government agents should not have free rein to violate the rights of the public with impunity. That's the uncontroversial premise behind a spate of petitions before the U.S. Supreme Court that pertain to law enforcement officers who breached clearly established law, and whose victims want to seek recourse. Recourse can prove elusive, if not impossible. The Court has yet to announce if it will hear two of those cases. The first pertains to a federal officer who devised a fake sex trafficking ring and jailed a teenage girl on bogus charges for two years. The second involves a Department ...

A Border Patrol Agent Assaulted Him and Violated His First Amendment Rights. He May Never Get To Sue.

Federal government agents should not have free rein to violate the rights of the public with impunity. That's the uncontroversial...

reason.com

 

[Democide]

How SCOTUS Protects Bad Federal Officers
When bed-and-breakfast owner Robert Boule asked Border Patrol agents, who were questioning a guest, to leave his property, an agent pushed him to the ground.

3 March 2022

Several recent Supreme Court decisions have made it nearly impossible to sue a federal officer for alleged violations of constitutional rights. Now the Court is weighing a new case, Egbert v. Boule, that could continue this sorry trend. Robert Boule is the owner of a bed-and-breakfast in Washington state near the Canadian border. Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert sought to question one of Boule's guests, a Turkish national, about his immigration status. Boule told the agent to leave his property. Egbert refused, then allegedly shoved Boule against a car and pushed him to the ground, injuring his shoulder. After Boule ...

How SCOTUS Protects Bad Federal Officers

When bed-and-breakfast owner Robert Boule asked Border Patrol agents, who were questioning a guest, to leave his property, an agent pushed him to the ground.

reason.com

 

[Democide]

Federal Agent Allegedly Violated the Constitution. SCOTUS Will Decide If He Can Be Sued for It.
The justices heard oral arguments this week in Egbert v. Boule.

3 March 2022

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in a case that asks whether a U.S. citizen who was allegedly victimized by the unconstitutional actions of a federal Border Patrol agent may sue that agent for damages in federal court. Alas, it looks like the agent has a good chance of prevailing over the citizen. The case is Egbert v. Boule. It centers on the application of a 1971 Supreme Court precedent, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which allowed a man to sue federal drug cops for using excessive force against him in violation ...

A Federal Agent Allegedly Violated the Constitution. SCOTUS Will Decide If He Can Be Sued for It.

The justices heard oral arguments this week in <i>Egbert v. Boule</i>.

reason.com