4 ms·
>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 faci
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>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 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- klyrs 4y agoThe plaintiff doesn't just run that conspicuously named inn, he also regularly informs various federal agencies about his guest's goings-on.
- ChrisLomont 4y agoAnd 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?