🧵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
🧵As we await decisions on the #SCOTUS relists of @IJ’s #WrongHouseRaid cert. petitions, I want to highlight how these cases expose a judicial hypocrisy.
Factually, they’re similar.
SWAT teams raided the wrong house without checking the address.
Legally, they’re distinct. 1/8
Despite the cases involving different statutes (1983 v FTCA), immunities (qualified v sovereign), types of cops (city PD v FBI), circuits (5th v 11th), the outcomes were identical.
Even though SWAT raided the wrong addresses, innocent families were left to bear the costs. 2/8
So here’s the judicial hypocrisy.
In 2022’s Egbert v. Boule, SCOTUS eviscerated Bivens’ cause of action for constitutional claims against federal officials.
Its justification was separation of powers:
Providing a damages action is the role of Congress, not the judiciary. 3/8
🧵 @IJ's been fighting hard against #FirstAmendment retaliation - litigating a dozen cases in the past few years. But people don't realize that #SCOTUS has all but killed retaliatory *arrest* claims. It's wild. Let me tell you about it (and our case👇). 1/ ij.org/case/castle-hi…
While #SCOTUS is very protective of prior restraint on @USConst_Amend_I and kinda protective of non-arrest retaliation (but see #QualifiedImmunity), it's openly hostile to retaliatory arrest claims. See Nieves v. Bartlett. 2/
Worse still, the reason #SCOTUS immunizes police from retaliatory arrest claims? Pure *policy* (AKA judicial activism). You can't enforce the #FirstAmendment because police have a tough job. Seriously. Justice Gorsuch points this out in his concurrence in Nieves. 3/
#SCOTUS🧵In 2014, police task force members misidentified James King as a criminal and brutally beat him. The officers never identified themselves, so bystanders believed they were witnessing a murder and called 911. Today, @IJ filed cert (for the 2nd time). #AppellateTwitter 1/
Litigation for the past 9 years(!) has been a case study in immunity doctrines, and has already been to the U.S. Supreme Court in Brownback v. King. I'll walk through that, but lets start with James telling his story: 2/
To begin, Mich. prosecutors charged *James* with multiple felonies. So at 21 he had to stand trial and face decades in prison. If the gov't can get a plea or conviction, most constitutional claims against police die. Thankfully, a jury acquitted James (and he refused to plea). 3/
In Taylor v. LeBlanc, the 5th Cir. holds it’s clearly established that prisons cannot hold people beyond their release date (more than 2 years in this case).
But the 5th Cir. creates a NEW ELEMENT of #QualifiedImmunity to let the jailer off. Wow. 1/
(1) Is there a constitutional violation? (2) Is it “clearly established”?
The clearly-established test does all the mischief because it requires an earlier decision on similar facts (e.g., pepper spray vs. taser). 2/
Though it’s premises are wrong (if not absurd), SCOTUS created the clearly-established test to determine whether an official’s acts were “objectively reasonable.” I.e., if there’s a similar case holding that an act is unconstitutional, it’s objectively unreasonable to do it. 3/
This is the Onion's first amicus brief, and it does a perfect job of showing and telling why parody (like the Facebook posts Anthony Novak published lampooning his local police) is a core #FirstAmendment tool. Anthony was arrested for it. Now the Onion stands with him: 2/
Much more (less funny) information on @IJ and Anthony's case here: 3/
More specifically, the court held that because there was probable cause for a made-up misdemeanor charge, it did not matter that the mayor, police chief, and others conspired to have Syliva jailed for speaking out. (The decision represents a narrow interpretation of Nieves.) 2/
Although @IJ and Sylvia proved that, over a decade no one in Bexar Cnty. TX has EVER been charged under the statute used to charge Sylvia for similar conduct, the only sufficient evidence is proving a negative; find people who jaywalked and DIDN'T get a ticket. (Impossible.) 3/