Substitute while the actions of the article are loading
A split Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a border patrol agent accused of using excessive force during confrontation, an outcome that will further limit lawsuits against law enforcement officials accused of constitutional violations.
In decision 6-3, the conservative majority of the court strengthened the protection of civil servants, who are usually immune from civil cases, when they are found to have acted in good faith while performing their duties.
Judge Clarence Thomas, who writes for the majority, said that in rare cases such allegations was allowed to proceed without explicit permission from Congress and that the court should not judge the legislators responsible for deciding when individuals can seek redress for constitutional violations.
“As our cases have made it clear that in all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a matter for Congress, not the courts, we are repealing it,” wrote Thomas, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Judges Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Cavanaugh and Amy Connie Barrett.
Judge Neil M. Gorsuch wrote separately, agreeing with the decision.
Disagreeing, the three liberal court judges said they would allow the Washington man’s case to continue against a federal agent. Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the court was “absolutely immune from responsibility” of thousands of border patrol officers, “no matter how serious the violation or the resulting injury.”
Such cases “play a critical role in deterring unconstitutional behavior by federal law enforcement officials,” wrote Sotomayor, who was joined by Judges Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan.
Judges say parents of Mexican teenager killed by border patrol agent can’t sue in US courts
The lawsuit was filed in 2017 by Robert Bull, who owned Smuggler’s Inn, a breakfast bed located in Washington state along the Canadian border. According to the court, Boule had a complicated relationship with federal agents. He sometimes serves as a paid, confidential informant, helping agents identify people crossing the border illegally near his property. He also provided accommodation and shuttles to those who pass illegally, driving a black jeep with registration number “CONTRANBIANT”.
Agents have seized shipments of illegal drugs from the inn, the statement said, and Bull was recently convicted in a Canadian court on charges of human trafficking.
Bule is suing a border patrol agent who he accused of illegally entering his property and pushing and pushing him to the ground during a meeting in 2014 involving a guest of Boule from Turkey. Agent Eric Egbert checked the guest’s immigration documents, which are current, and the guest illegally crossed the border with Canada that evening, the court said in a statement. Bull claims that the agent violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force and taking revenge on Boule for complaining to the agent’s superiors.
Central to this case is the 1971 decision Bevans v. Six unknown agents of the Federal Bureau of Drugs in which the Supreme Court recognizes that federal officials may be tried in some cases, even if such cases have not been expressly resolved by Congress.
But since then, the court has moved to limit when individuals can file such federal lawsuits. Two years ago, a split court ruled that the family of a Mexican teenager killed by a Border Patrol agent in a cross-border shooting could not stand trial in U.S. courts. Earlier, the court said in 2017 that senior US government officials could not be held accountable for the alleged unconstitutional treatment of non-citizens detained after 9/11.
Supreme Court says US officials cannot be held accountable for alleged unconstitutional treatment of non-citizens
Sotomayor wrote in his disagreement that the majority on Wednesday rewrote and expanded their own legal standard “beyond recognition” to “close the door on Bull’s lawsuit.” She noted that the disputed behavior took place on American soil and the injury was to an American citizen.
“This case does not affect national security,” she wrote, adding that “Congress has not provided that federal law enforcement officials may enter private property near the border at any time or for any purpose.”
But Thomas said the reasons for earlier decisions on national security were Bull’s case, as the Border Patrol agent was on duty to stop people from entering or leaving the United States illegally. Boule, he said, had other ways to address his concerns about the agent’s behavior, noting that he had filed a complaint that led to a year-long internal investigation.
The majority stopped to cancel Beaversbut Gorsuch writes separately to emphasize that the court should not give the false impression that future claims will be viable.
“Weighing the costs and benefits of new laws is the bread and butter of legislative committees. “He has no place in the federal courts, which are responsible for resolving cases and disputes under existing law,” he wrote.
The court’s decision overturned the unanimous decision of a three-judge panel of the US District Court of Appeal for the 9th District.
Egbert’s lawyer argues that allowing Bull’s claims will undermine the ability of border patrol agents to conduct searches as part of their responsibilities to enforce immigration. The Biden administration supported the agent’s position.
Stephen A. Engel, a lawyer who filed a statement in support of Egbert on behalf of former U.S. attorneys general in the Republican administration, said the court had understood correctly.
“The plaintiff here cannot cite a federal law authorizing his claim, and thus the Court has rightly upheld the constitutional principle that the power to create such remedies rests with Congress,” Engel said in an email Wednesday.
Boule’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In court documents, Boule said his allegations did not raise concerns about national security or immigration and were merely trying to address the misconduct against him.
The case is Egbert v. Boule.
Add Comment