Court gives lawsuit immunity to Border Patrol agents violating the Constitution | Hacker News Reader

Court gives lawsuit immunity to Border Patrol agents violating the Constitution

vox.com

60 pointsVladimof16 comments

> JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

> Respondent Robert Boule alleges that petitioner Erik Egbert, a U. S. Customs and Border Patrol agent, violated the Fourth Amendment by entering Boule’s property without a warrant and assaulting him. Existing precedent permits Boule to seek compensation for his injuries in federal court. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971); Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. 120 (2017). The Court goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid this result: It rewrites a legal standard it established just five years ago, stretches national-security concerns beyond recognition, and discerns an alternative remedial structure where none exists. The Court’s innovations, taken together, enable it to close the door to Boule’s claim and, presumably, to others that fall squarely within Bivens’ ambit.

> Today’s decision does not overrule Bivens. It nevertheless contravenes precedent and will strip many more individuals who suffer injuries at the hands of other federal officers, and whose circumstances are materially indistinguishable from those in Bivens, of an important remedy. I therefore dissent from the Court’s disposition of Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim. I concur in the Court’s judgment that Boule’s First Amendment retaliation claim may not proceed under Bivens, but for reasons grounded in precedent rather than this Court’s newly announced test.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf

The Supreme Court did not invent an immunity, the simply chose not to invent a cause of action that the plaintiffs would have liked to use. Congress is free to pass legislation creating a cause of action, as they are the democratically elected representatives of the people. And such legislation would be effective, because - again - the Supreme Court did not give immunity.

This article is the equivalent of saying someone donated next-gen bulletproof armor to the Russians when they simply chose not to go and shoot at them.

(It's probably safe to say that any Vox, Fox News, or other partisan hack post about the law is inappropriate for HN.)

The plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated by government officers. They sought accountability for those violations which was denied by the supreme court. This will now be precedent for all the other officers who can violate rights; they can do so without accountability. It's a really big deal. This is the same supreme court that recently said that absolute proof of innocence is not a sufficient reason for the state to not execute someone.

>The plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated by government officers.

The plaintiff runs an inn called Smuggler's Inn on a US border that regularly facilitates illegal border crossings.

The actual opinion [1] seems pretty well reasoned, provides ample previous cases that had similar outcomes. It does not simply cancel all accountability - it maintains the balance of Constitutional powers dealing with borders, rights, and criminal activity. None of them are 100% unconstrained.

Also note the vote: 6 concurred, 3 concurred in part and dissented in part.

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf

The plaintiff doesn't just run that conspicuously named inn, he also regularly informs various federal agencies about his guest's goings-on.

And this case grew from an instance where he did not want to help a federal agency that was investigating a person, according to the SCOTUS opinion, that right after the incident illegally entered Canada.

Maybe this person was playing both sides?

"The border" extending inward 100mi (160km) inland from the line that is the edge of the US:

* https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

* https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

Around two-thirds (66%) of the US population lives in this area.

That could become a huge problem.

> And, in large part due to the Electoral College and a malapportioned Senate that gives Republicans an unfair advantage in the fight for control over the judiciary

This is biased and wrong. The Senate is no more malapportioned than is the Council of Europe, which likewise gives equal weight to each member state. The U.S. Senate is meant to represent the states. This reinforces my opinion that the Seventeenth Amendment (which mandates a popular vote for senators) was a mistake.

Honestly, I kinda feel that state legislatures should appoint some or all of their states' electors, too.

What Vox wrote is a correct statement of fact.

Malapportionment is the creation of electoral districts with divergent ratios of voters to representatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_(politics)#Malap...

You may agree with malapportionment, but that's a difference in opinion over how a legislative body should be designed. Hamilton was not a fan though: Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. (Fed .22)

> Malapportionment is the creation of electoral districts with divergent ratios of voters to representatives.

That begs the question of whether the representatives represent voters or something else. I think it's obvious that Senators represent the states, and in that sense the ratio of represented to representatives is a fair and even 1:2.

The term was coined in the 1960s to describe how voters are represented. Any unequal representation of the voter is by definition malapportionment. That is the common use of the term. A Google or DDG search will find dozens upon dozens of uses of this meaning:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108670

https://www.nytimes.com/1967/11/02/archives/westchester-mala...

https://www.nytimes.com/1971/06/20/archives/and-to-malapport...

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/10/opinion/one-person-one-vo...

Etc.

The Senate is a malapportioned legislative body by design and by definition.

If one truly believes in "law and order" then they should hold officers of the law to the same standards.

Absolutely agreed. How can the law be fairly enforced if those who enforce it are above it?

It looks like this submission is getting flagged a lot... On the front page, there's a submission with 14 points submitted two hours ago and this one is already on the second page with 33 points submitted one hour ago. They both had one comment.

Seems like a relevant HN story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com