16 ms·
SCOTUS rules you may sue government agents for damages when they violate rights
- klyrs 6y agoNote, this applies to federal officials. I don't expect that it overturns qualified immunity for police officers, for example.
- russler23 6y agoIt is a step in the right direction, and indicates the court may be amenable to a broader recognition of rights violations in the future.
- travmatt 6y agoIn the decision the justices note that qualified immunity was not the matter brought before the court, and it may yet shield the agents in question from personal liability.
- ahelwer 6y agoA good & surprising ruling, somewhat restoring the supreme court's prolonged erosion of that right after its establishment by congress in the 1871 Ku Klux Klan act. Qualified immunity is purely an invention of the courts; it should be done away with.
- an_opabinia 6y agoFor every wrongfully convicted inmate seeking money, won't there be 10 corporations suing over adverse regulatory findings?
- jstanley 6y agoWhich would be a fine ratio, on the basis that it's better to let 100 guilty men walk free than to convict 1 innocent man.
- Privacy846 6y agoCorporations are not people, however.
- refurb 6y agoThey aren’t. They are groups of people. If we apply your statement are you saying corporations have zero constitutional protections? The state could seize their assets without compensation? Enter a company’s property to search it at any time and without a warrant?
- Privacy846 6y agoMy comment was a reference to corporate personhood, the legal notion that corporations are considered to be persons per se (i.e. not “groups of people”). Which is practiced in some countries, like e.g. the United States. That makes no sense to me, but that’s the kind of world we live in. So relax. Corporations don’t need your apologetics—they’re doing just fine.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- willis936 6y agoHow is prosecution a violation of rights? Illegal search and seizure or unwarranted detainment is a violation of rights.
- lumost 6y agoIllegal search and seizure can often result in unlawful prosecution.
- otterley 6y agoWe already have a remedy for unlawful search and seizure: exclusion of evidence. Google “fruit of the poisonous tree” to learn more.
- mtgx 6y agoThe fbi does it s lot these days and gets away with it. Actually the latest FISA renewal gives FBI and 16 other gov agencies access to full raw internet data and they can search it all they want...but they need a warrant to bring it to court. However, by now they've become experts at parallel construction and they usually outsmart judges and even defence attorneys on technical issues.
- tharne 6y agoThat's only a partial remedy. Having your home illegally searched is not made right simply because anything found during that search can't be used to prosecute you. You still had you home and privacy violated.
- jcranmer 6y agoUntil parallel construction kicks in and the police find some way to introduce the unlawful evidence anyways.
- otterley 6y agoParallel construction does not mean the evidence gets to be introduced. Other evidence collected by other lawful means would have to be obtained. Parallel construction refers to the act of lawfully collecting other (perhaps similar) evidence from a different source, the existence of which was revealed by the previous unlawful search. In any event, it’s a relatively rare phenomenon, and if you find yourself in trouble with the law, follow the ACLU’s advice regarding your rights, and don’t skimp on a criminal lawyer.
- ashtonkem 6y agoSo? We all benefit when state power is applied in a consistent and rights respecting ways. It doesn't do to allow government to run roughshod over one group of people just because you approve of the outcome (or disapprove of the victim), because eventually that process will be applied in a way you'll disapprove of.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- baybal2 6y agoHow strong is US constitution in front of US courts? Not that much. US courts don't follow US constitution literally, and take freedom doing a lot of "interpretation." My law professor in Canada, who once was a US citizen, and a practicing lawyer in US said: — US constitution is fairly good at protecting what's written in it, for it being near nothing. His favourite poke at the US legal system was an example how either Texan, or Kentuckian court managed to establish how "A woman is not legally a person" in a way that did not directly contradict any US law, precedent, or article of constitution. And that happened as recently as sixties, if not seventies.
- jdsully 6y agoCanada has the living tree doctrine and is similarly liberal with its constitutional interpretation - a document that is already way more watered down than the American.
- meundies9 6y agoYeah. As much as originalism can impede progress and reform in certain ways, so can generous interpretation. I don't want an Alito or an RBG - Kagan's just fine.
- selimthegrim 6y agoEnforcement Act, for those of you warming up the Google.
- adrr 6y agoGood ruling. Now if we can target qualified immunity for state and local government employees. Suing and collecting money from the government punishes the tax payer.
- xoa 6y ago>Suing and collecting money from the government punishes the tax payer. Which, to be clear, is a GOOD thing. We live in a democracy, and the tax payer is ultimately responsible and should be punished in some small way. We don't have to shut off our brains when someone up for election preaches about "law and order"/"think of the children" and accuse opponents of being "weak on crime". Everything from over criminalization to qualified immunity could be wiped with the stroke of a pen if our representatives at the federal and state levels acted. That that hasn't happened is ultimately our fault. The very least we can do is pay damages when the result hurts people. Yes there should be more individual accountability too, but power always should go with some level of responsibility. Tax payers have power as well. It's very irritating to see people separating themselves from all that and acting so passive. Democracy isn't a spectator sport.
- clarkmoody 6y agoInstitute for Justice is fighting the good fight. They argue tons of cases against things like asset forfeiture and police immunity, and they win. I highly recommend sending some of your charitable giving to IJ this year.
- woeirua 6y agoI’m in favor of ending unlimited qualified immunity but capping the maximum damages seems like a reasonable compromise for most cases. In the most egregious situations, the cap should be removed and government officers should face the same penalties as they would had they been acting as a private citizen.
- Spooky23 6y agoAgents of the government are generally indemnified against liability for acts in good faith. Accountability comes from work rules. It’s unwise to open that door to personal liability, as there are many liability risks that even a low level official faces, even when their conduct is correct. Frankly, you’d need to be an idiot to have anything to do with HR or procurement working in any government subdivision with personal liabilty.
- giantg2 6y agoQualified immunity should only apply if the person is following protocol. If the protocol is wrong, the suite should go against the policy setter (municipality). If the person violated policy, it should be on them. If they neither violated nor followed policy, it should be determined by the courts. I don't generally agree with capping damages. This could prevent real damages from being reimbursed. Capping intangibles could be ok though.
- whatshisface 6y ago>In the most egregious situations, the cap should be removed That doesn't make any sense to call a cap, you're basically saying "the awarded damages are not to exceed $N except for in cases where they are ruled to exceed $N."
- supernova87a 6y agoWhile I am heartened by the ruling, I think it's important to note that SCOTUS is merely saying that the language of the law allows for personal liability of (and lawsuits against) government officials. Do not rejoice too soon. If the law gave immunity to officials in their personal capacity, they might have equally ruled that you cannot sue them personally under the law. The court is making no principled or difficult stand for any kind of civil rights here, hence you may note the unanimous opinion. More and more things are falling to the courts to decide because Congress is paralyzed for some reason having to do with the new atmosphere of microsecond attention span and single-issue voting. I think we would be wrong to place so much hope in the courts, and rather try to fix what is broken with our system of creating and updating laws.
- sillyquiet 6y agoWell, that's exactly what the courts on the Federal level are there to do, constitutionally, rule on what the law is, not decide what the law should be. If they do that, they just become a de facto legislature that's not elected. The actual legislature, as you note, is where these fixes need to occur. Using the courts for it is a civics hack, and one that will bite us in the ass.
- newacct583 6y ago> rule on what the law is, not decide what the law should be Seems like that's very hard to square with Citizens or Shelby County, both of which overturned quite clearly written laws with long-accepted interpretations. The textualism stuff is, at best, an excuse used when the court wants to do nothing. It doesn't limit the court when it wants to make changes. In this case, the court took as narrow a step as possible into the minefield that leads to Qualified Immunity. It's a baby step in the right direction, but it's just a baby step.
- dcolkitt 6y agoCitizens United was based on the law being unconstitutional, not the court’s interpretation of the law.
- kryogen1c 6y agothe government doesnt have any money of its own - thats our money. to rephrase: the government does something the courts rule as wrong, so they take money from us to pay for their mistakes. the injured party clearly deserves recompense, but i feel like we can do better than this.
- adamsea 6y agoI agree with you that it's our money, and, in the same vein, it's also our government : ). So, IMHO one answer to your question is we can engage in activism to motivate our government to change our laws and regulations to prevent a repeat of the violation in question, and vote for representatives who also would support such things. Like, once you find a bug in production, you fix it, and ideally then do an analysis of how it got there and what practices might be worth changing and maybe you also write a test in case someone slips up in the future.
- FpUser 6y agoWhen government agents who abuse people's rights would be personally punished (fat chance) we might suddenly find a lot less laws and rules violated.
- goodluckchuck 6y agoThey are if they do it on purpose / know that its illegal, which is how it should be.
- FpUser 6y agoYeah sure. It happens sometimes but rarely. Mostly the investigations being stonewalled, facts hidden/ignored etc/etc
- nobody9999 6y ago>the government doesnt have any money of its own - thats our money. to rephrase: the government does something the courts rule as wrong, so they take money from us to pay for their mistakes. the injured party clearly deserves recompense, but i feel like we can do better than this. I see and understand your perspective. You're right, "government" does do things that, prospectively, contemporaneously and/or retrospectively are inappropriate, unfair and/or just plain bad/stupid. That said, at least in the United States, "government" isn't some foreign agency or third party. Government is us. All of us, through those we select as representatives in our town, county, state and federal governments. We can (and, in my estimation, should) do better. But I believe it's incorrect to place blame on some nebulous "government", as if it's not us Americans. A good way to start "doing better" would be to remove the perverse incentives that make money the primary currency of our political system. Independent, non-partisan creation of local/state/federal election districts is a good idea too. That's a huge problem. For example[0], in the 2018 elections, 53% of Wisconsinites voted for Democratic state (assembly and senate) candidates, but those candidates only won 36% of seats in those bodies. That's just one example. I'm not singling out any particular party, there certainly are states with Democratic majorities that have created district maps that favor their candidates too. In any case, I agree with OP, but just wanted to point out that, at least in the US (and many other places too), we are the government, not downtrodden serfs crushed under the heel of some other group. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-layers-republican-power-grabbing-wisconsin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-l... Edit: Fixed typographical error and redundant wording.
- lettergram 6y agoPrepare for incoming election fraud lawsuits... local officials not following the laws etc
- exabrial 6y agoA founding principle of this country is that you cannot have a right removed without due process. No fly lists, red flag laws, etc violate this.
- rantwasp 6y agoI think that no-fly lists are pure BS, but for the sake of argument, flying is not a right as long as it's provided by a private entity. When a private entity flies you from point A to point B they have the right to refuse service (see what happened to the anti-maskers that did not want to follow the airline guidelines)
- bacondude3 6y agoI agree with you, but to answer your argument: the difference is that one is airlines choosing who they want to serve, and the other is the government choosing who airlines are allowed to serve. I have no problem with the former, but I have a big problem with the latter, particularly as it's currently implemented.
- exabrial 6y ago^ Exactly. This disambiguation is essential.
- rantwasp 6y agoI don't know exactly how this works, but you can definitely end up on the list because the airlines OR the gov want you on the list. I guess that once you're there it makes little difference, but I agree with you that these things should be treated differently (the same way in which your SSN is your personal identification number when this is not it's original purpose but private entities hijack it anyway)
- fdschoeneman 6y agoIm confused. The article seems to be saying you can sue government agents who violate your rights, but the ruling seems to only be saying you can sue the government. Which seems dumb. The agent violated your rights, not the taxpayers.
- genocidicbunny 6y agoI'm pretty sure the ruling is saying that due to how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is worded, suing individual agents of the government qualifies as redress against the government; The RFRA more specifically defines what 'the government' means to include agents of the government acting in their individual capacities. > (a) RFRA’s text provides that persons may sue and “obtain appro-priate relief against a government,” 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(c), includ-ing an “official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States,” §2000bb–2(1). [1] [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-71_qol1.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-71_qol1.pdf
- pdonis 6y ago> The article seems to be saying you can sue government agents who violate your rights Not quite. It's saying that Congress has the authority to make a law that allows you to sue government agents, in their personal capacities, if they violate your rights in particular ways. In this particular case, Congress had passed such a law that applied to the rights violation in the case.
- golemotron 6y agoHow quick before someone sues election authorities directly under this to get the standing that SCOTUS denied Texas's suit yesterday?
- jmull 6y agoWho knows (people can try to sue for anything, by filing paperwork), but this doesn't address standing, and won't make a meritless case less meritless. So it doesn't change anything re the election.
- ExcavateGrandMa 6y agoI've a confidential PDF stating position from military agent working in the public space... it surprising to read... (based from my country's handling) :Ð
- heavyset_go 6y agoI have a friend whose car was torn apart with a knife by cops during a traffic stop. Cops didn't find whatever they thought they would, and my friend was never charged with anything. According to the law, none of his rights were violated. He can't recoup the thousands of dollars he had to pay after having his car destroyed by cops, either.
- phkahler 6y ago>> He can't recoup the thousands of dollars he had to pay after having his car destroyed by cops, either. Is that his lawyers opinion or theirs? Would this ruling change that?
- heavyset_go 6y agoIf I'm recalling it correctly, he said something about it being legal search based on probable cause, and that the cops aren't liable for damage done during a search. I doubt this ruling will change anything, because his rights weren't violated according to the law. I shared it because cops can do a lot of damage based off of a hunch, and there isn't much you can do about it if they don't blatantly violate your rights while doing so.
- frankydp 6y agoMost of these statements are inaccurate in almost all states. Most department have a clerk that specifically handles these types of claims. Unless there is a bunch of other details around the arrest, would probably be worth the time to file a claim.
- solidsnack9000 6y agoThis has to do with qualified immunity. It's not so much that his rights weren't violated, as that, per qualified immunity, it doesn't matter, because there is not a very close precedent (like, once upon a time, some sheriffs cut apart a stage coach interior with a bowie knife and got charged) that can be used to base a ruling on. If that seems like a strange doctrine to you, you're not alone! https://www.cato.org/blog/may-15th-supreme-court-will-finally-decide-whether-hear-cases-calling-abolition-qualified https://www.cato.org/blog/may-15th-supreme-court-will-finall... I wonder if this ruling does not have an impact on qualified immunity as a sustainable doctrine. In this ruling, SCOTUS has recognized a claim against law enforcement for rights violations not by finding a matching precedent but by reasoning from (recent) positive law.
- ineedasername 6y agoIt's a good step. Hopefully the next one will be to curtail the overreach of "sovereign immunity" in protecting entirely too much bad behavior. It's entirely possible that this or a similar case could now proceed to find damages for the plaintiff only to arrive again at the Supreme Court to be dismissed on immunity grounds.
- dave_4_bagels 6y agoThis is great. However, even as a Biden voter I find the latest ruling regarding state election laws deeply troubling. It basically sets a precedent that election laws can now be permanently finagled.
- ineedasername 6y agoI've never quite understood how the "no fly list" is itself a constitutional process in the first place. It lacks due process and transparency with an appeal process that is administrative rather than judicial. I don't understand how the government can constitutionally invoke a penalty without first having to prove that some violation has occured.
- mindslight 6y agoLayered complexity induces logical contradictions. Specifically here, the modern world forces many people to fly, even though it technically remains a voluntary activity. Businesses are free to reject serving you for any reason, even making such decisions in lock step with the rest of the industry. Ergo, your right to travel gets constructively neutered through commercial law, even though your axiomatic/primitive rights have purportedly not been violated. AFAICT the airlines wanted all of that bullshit legislation to indemnify themselves from the damages caused by terrorism. Technically you might be able to create your own airline (and airports) that rejected all of the groping theater, etc. And perhaps after decades of fighting in court you'd win the right for your companies to not have their freedom hampered in such a manner. But none of that is economically prudent, so we're stuck with the blatantly anticonstitutional regulations.
- tt433 6y agoAn egregious overreach all in reaction to the loss of a sum of souls we have since grown numb to.
- mlindner 6y agoAirports are a mess of constitutional violation all over the place. That they can search you and that protests can't happen at airports are already violations of the constitution. When you have the entire US populace almost united together in effort is when the constitution breaks down. See WW2 and the internment of Japanese civilians and 9/11 with the creation of department of homeland security and all it's abuses.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- austincheney 6y agoI suppose it should be noted rights are limited to protections expressly provided by government. For example there is a right against improper search and seizure but there is no right to privacy. Therefore violations are limited to harms of conduct expressed by letter of law opposed to implied transgressions, inconveniences, or embarrassment.
- spacemanmatt 6y agoUgh, once again I am missing the discussion community at Groklaw to help unpack things like this.