Sort of? A lot was said about EGBERT v. BOULE, initially that it allowed CBP to simply search any home within 100 miles of the border. There was then a big push

Sort of? A lot was said about EGBERT v. BOULE, initially that it allowed CBP to simply search any home within 100 miles of the border. There was then a big pushback, that it didn't actually allow this but simply limited folks options to sue in these scenarios which is different from allowing it. This was not a simple case of trying to sue for some damages, like breaking a door down or technically violating rights by entering without permission: > When Egbert entered the inn without a warrant to investigate a guest staying there, Boule stepped between the guest and the agent and asked the agent to leave. > Egbert then threw Boule to the ground, injuring him. After Boule exercised his First Amendment right to file a complaint and administrative claim with Egbert’s supervisor, the agent retaliated against him by prompting multiple unfounded investigations into Boule. In a sane world CBP agent Erik Egbert would be in prison but he wasn't even fired. The supreme court saying they're not technically condoning the behavior but denying the plaintiff any ability to sue seems like a distinction without a difference to me!