Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
.-') _ .-') _
( OO ) ) ( OO ) )
.-----. ,--./ ,--,' ,--./ ,--,'
' .--./ | \ | |\ | \ | |\
| |('-. | \| | )| \| | )
/_) |OO )| . |/ | . |/
|| |`-'| | |\ | | |\ |
(_' '--'\ | | \ | | | \ |
`-----' `--' `--' `--' `--'
lite.cnn.com - on gopher - inofficial
ARTICLE VIEW:
Kavanaugh faces blowback for claiming Americans can sue over encounters
with ICE
By John Fritze, CNN
Updated:
4:00 AM EDT, Wed September 10, 2025
Source: CNN
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s breezy suggestion this week that Americans
who are can sue agents in federal court is drawing pushback from civil
rights attorneys who note the Supreme Court’s conservative majority
has in recent years made those cases nearly impossible to win.
Writing to explain the Monday that allowed the Trump administration to
continue “roving” immigration patrols in Southern California,
Kavanaugh brushed aside concerns that masked ICE agents had pushed,
shoved and detained Hispanics – in one instance throwing a US citizen
against a fence and confiscating his phone.
“To the extent that excessive force has been used,” Kavanaugh wrote
in a 10-page concurrence, “the Fourth Amendment prohibits such
action, and remedies should be available in federal court.”
But in a series of recent decisions – including two that involved
incidents at the border – the Supreme Court has severely limited the
ability of people to sue federal law enforcement officers for excessive
force claims. Kavanaugh, who was nominated to the court by Trump during
his first term, was in the majority in those decisions.
“It’s bordering on impossible to get any sort of remedy in a
federal court when a federal officer violates federal rights,” said
Patrick Jaicomo, a senior attorney at the libertarian Institute for
Justice who has regularly represented clients suing federal agents.
Lauren Bonds, executive director of the National Police Accountability
Project, said that it can be incredibly difficult for a person
subjected to excessive force to find an attorney and take on the
federal government in court.
“What we’ve seen is, term after term, the court limiting the
avenues that people have available to sue the federal government,”
Bonds told CNN.
Sotomayor dissents
To stop a person on the street for questioning, immigration officials
must have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the
country illegally. The question for the Supreme Court was whether an
agent could rely on factors like a person’s apparent ethnicity,
language or their presence at a particular location, to establish
reasonable suspicion.
A US district court in July ordered the Department of Homeland Security
to of making initial stops based on those factors. The Supreme Court on
Monday, without an explanation from the majority, put that lower court
order on hold – effectively greenlighting the administration’s
approach while the litigation continues in lower courts.
In a sharp dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited the stories raised by
several of the people in Southern California who had been caught up in
the crackdown.
“The government, and now the concurrence, has all but declared that
all Latinos, US citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game
to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they
provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction,”
wrote Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and
Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jason Gavidia, a US citizen, was approached in June by masked agents
who repeatedly questioned his citizenship status, pressing him to name
the hospital in which he was born, according to court records. When he
could not answer that question, he said, agents racked a rifle, took
his phone and pushed him up against a metal fence.
He was later released.
Another US citizen, Jorge Viramontes, was grabbed and escorted by
agents into a vehicle and held in a “warehouse area” for further
questioning, according to court documents.
Richard Re, a Harvard Law professor, viewed Kavanaugh’s remark in the
opinion differently. Maybe, , Kavanaugh was attempting to signal
something about where he thinks the law should go.
“When you have an important sentence that’s very ambiguous, it’s
usually deliberately so,” Re, who clerked for Kavanaugh when he was
an appeals court judge, told CNN.
“I think it’s not clear what to make of that remark,” Re said.
“It could suggest a genuine interest, on at least one pivotal
justice’s part, in revitalizing Fourth Amendment remediation.”
Limited recourse
The court has for years been limiting the ability of people who face
excessive force to sue federal agents, litigation that proponents say
can act as a check on such behavior.
In 2020, the court’s conservative majority from the family of a
15-year-old Mexican boy who was shot and killed across the border by a
Border Patrol agent.
Three years ago, the court similarly who owned a bed and breakfast near
the Canadian border and who said he was pushed to the ground as Border
Patrol agents questioned a guest about their immigration status.
Lawsuits against federal police are controlled by a 1971 precedent,
Bivens v.Six Unknown Named Agents, that involved federal drug agents
who searched the home of a man without a warrant. The Supreme Court
allowed that lawsuit, but in recent years it has significantly clamped
down on the ability of people to file suits in any other circumstance
besides the warrant involved in the Bivens case. The right to sue
federal agents, the court has maintained, should be set by Congress,
not the courts.
Americans may also sue the government for damages under the Federal
Tort Claims Act, if its employees engage in wrongdoing or negligence.
But federal courts have carved out a complicated patchwork of
exceptions to that law as well. Earlier this year, in a on the wrong
house, a unanimous Supreme Court allowed the family to sue, but also
limited the scope of a provision of the law that was aimed at
protecting people who are harmed by federal law enforcement.
The tort law, Bonds said, is “incredibly narrow, incredibly complex
and definitely not a sure thing.”
‘Shadow docket’ criticism
Kavanaugh’s opinion came as the court has faced sharp criticism in
some quarters for deciding a slew of emergency cases in Trump’s favor
without any explanation.
The Supreme Court has consistently sided with Trump recently,
overturning lower courts’ temporary orders and allowing the president
to fire the leadership of independent agencies, cut spending authorized
by Congress and pursue an aggressive crackdown on immigration while
litigation continues in lower courts.
Those emergency cases don’t fully resolve the legal questions at hand
– and the that could influence the final outcome of a case – but
they can have enormous, real-world consequences.
Emergency cases are almost always handled without oral argument and are
addressed on a much tighter deadline than the court’s regular merits
cases.
In that sense, Kavanaugh’s opinion provided some clarity about how at
least one member of the court’s majority viewed the ICE patrols.
He noted Sotomayor’s dissent and pointed out that the issue of
excessive force was not involved in the case.
“The Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard continues to govern
the officers’ use of force and to prohibit excessive force,”
Kavanaugh said.
What he didn’t explain, several experts note, is how a violation of
those rights could be vindicated.
“Sincerely wondering,” University of Chicago law professor William
Baude , “what remedies does Justice Kavanaugh believe are and should
be available in federal court these days for excessive force violations
by federal immigration officials?”
<- back to index
You are viewing proxied material from codevoid.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.