🧵More on Egbert v. Boule, #FederalImmunity, #PoliceAccountability: @IJ has 2 petitions pending on a similar issue involving *domestic* federal policing: Mohamud v. Weyker & Byrd v. Lamb. SCOTUS has been holding those cases *since Jan.* pending Egbert. 1/
We expect the Court will soon issue orders in Mohamud and Byrd (perhaps Monday), and what it does with them will be telling about what - if anything - is left of Bivens. If you want a little more on our cases, I have talked about them here: 2/
Big picture, Egbert is the latest in the Court's death-by-1000-cuts approach to klling Bivens (w/o having to confront stare decisis or public outrage). What Egbert holds is that federal police *involved in immigration related functions* (about half) now have #FederalImmunity. 3/
But the major distinction between Egbert and @IJ's cases is that Egbert involved immigration related policing and our cases involve *domestic* policing. See, e.g., Egbert's QPs (note #3 was NOT granted, so theoretically, the Court was adamantly not overruling Bivens). 4/
Indeed, at oral argument in Egbert, the SG used this as a major point of leverage for how the CPB could win in Egbert w/o SCOTUS overturning Bivens. We explained this in detail in @IJ's supplemental briefs in Mohamud and Byrd: 5/ supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2…
So, if SCOTUS GVRs Byrd and Mohamud because they involve domestic federal policing, there might be something left alive in Bivens. But if SCOTUS simply denies, boy, that sure seems like #FederalImmunity is now absolute, Bivens is done, and . . . 6/
Even Marbury v. Madison is called into question. Because that ruling established (1) judicial review, (2) that the constitutional is an enforceable legal document (not a political one), and (3) that every right must have a remedy. #FederalImmunity kills all 3. /7
In response to Egbert, we filed another supplemental brief in Byrd today, arguing that Bivens is not dead (and should not be) but, if it is, the Court should have the courage to say what it's doing (which is a point Gorsuch made in his concurrence): /8
Related: As a matter of basic constitutional design, the courts don't need a permission slip from Congress to enforce the constitution. But even if they did, Congress provided one in the Westfall Act. /9
And even if that's not right, Congress could (and now must) solve the #FederalImmunity problem by adding FOUR DAMN WORDS to Section 1983: /10
I'll be sure to let you know what happens and, as a result, what is left of federal #PoliceAccountability. Stay tuned. 11/
PS @IJ litigates #FederalImmunity, in addition to #QualifiedImmunity and other doctrines that thwart the Constitution, through our Project on Immunity and Accountability. Find out more and support us here:
/END
In 2022, Noah Petersen criticized his home town, Newton, Iowa, and city leadership for police abuse and a lack of transparency in its handling of the arrest of Tayvin Galanakis.
For his comments, the mayor directed police to arrest Noah.
My @IJ colleague Daniel Nelson and I are now published in @HarvardJLPP with our article Section 1983 (Still) Displaces Qualified Immunity.
We explain how the long-lost "Notwithstanding Clause" of §1983 proves Reconstruction Congress prohibited QI.
1/
The paper builds on Alexander Reinert's excavation of the Notwithstanding Clause of §1983. The clause was omitted during codification, but Daniel and I show this didn't remove its import. Rather, it proves Congress thought it was obvious no defenses carried into §1983. 2/
When SCOTUS created qualified immunity, it did so on the assumption that there was "no clear indication that Congress meant to abolish wholesale all common-law immunities."
@IJ now shows this assumption was wrong.
The history of the Notwithstanding Clause makes this clear.
My @IJ colleague Anya and I have an oped in @WSJ today, calling out Congress's Animal-Farm-esque decision to create a special cause of action, NOT subject to qualified immunity, for Senators to sue federal officials.
This Senatorial treat is hidden deep in the shutdown deal.
1/
The provision creates a cause of action to sue the U.S. for the acts of federal employees and explicitly precludes qualified immunity.
That sounds great, right? We want federal accountability at @IJ.
Here's the problem: Congress created this action exclusively for SENATORS.
2/
This means 2 things:
(1) Congress KNOWS that the lack of a cause of action against feds AND qualified immunity are hindrances to accountability.
(2) Congress thinks accountability is only for the powerful.
Every member of Congress must be asked to explain this.
The Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited ruling in the Alien Enemies Act case, AARP v. Trump.
The Court rules 7-2 that AEA detainees need more notice than was given. So they cannot presently be deported.
Kavanaugh concurs.
Alito and Thomas dissent (as before).
1/
After noting the gamesmanship, SCOTUS explains that the 5th Cir. erred in finding no jurisdiction. There is jurisdiction for emergency appeals when the practical effect of the lower courts is the same as refusing an injunction.
Also, the gov't's notice was insufficient.
2/
Because the gov't took such drastic action so quickly, 24 hour notice is nought enough to satisfy DUE PROCESS, which JJG v. Trump already held is required.
But how much notice is required can be addressed on remand, while an injunction stays in place.
🧵Nearly THREE YEARS after @IJ argued the ankle-monitor case Meade v. ETOH, the 5th Cir. issued an unpublished opinion holding that a judge's private, monetary relationship with a private ankle-monitoring company does not "create an unconstitutional risk of judicial bias."
1/
New Orleans judge Paul Bonin ordered defendant's to use a specific ankle-monitoring company: ETOH.
ETOH would send the judge the outstanding bills for the $300 "service."
If defendants didn't pay, the judge would threaten to jail them or refuse to release them from monitoring.
2/
But the judge never disclosed ETOH was run by his former law partner, who (along with the other owner of ETOH) repeatedly made monetary contributions to the judge.
The 5th Cir. held that this wasn't enough to violate due process.
4/7: In JJG v. Trump, SCOTUS held that the D.C. District Court lacked habeas jurisdiction.
Still, SCOTUS held that Alien Enemy detainees are entitled to notice “in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief.”
1/
4/14: AG Bondi promulgated a memo to all federal police.
Directly contradicting SCOTUS, Bondi ordered police to falsely tell all AEA detainees they are “not entitled to a hearing, appeal, or judicial review of the apprehension and removal warrant.”
This memo stayed secret.
2/
4/23: The gov’t opposed a TRO in another AEA case, JAV v. Trump.
There it said the gov’t “developed procedures for aliens” subject to the AEA per SCOTUS in JJG.
It cited a SEALED decl., claiming each detainee is served an English form that’s read and explained in Spanish.