2022-06-09 19:53:27
Citizens can seek remedies from Congress in the border-security context. This means that the fourth amendment is still intact. To suggest otherwise is hyperbole and misleading. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(1-2-0) Author
2022-06-10 00:17:25
In Egbert v Boule, SCOTUS found the 4th amendment claims did not meet the criteria for government civil liability (Bivens Test) and declined to extend new liability to 1st amendment claims. Existing 1A & 4A protections are not impacted. Border zone is defined by 8 CFR 287 [Link][Link][Link] CURRENTLY_RATED_HELPFUL(0-0-0) Author
2022-06-10 04:32:44
What the Court is saying is that there are alternative ways for the victim to seek redress (maybe not ideal but they do exist) and if better ways to handle such claims against border patrol officers exist, Congress should be the one to decide that, not unelected judges [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(0-0-1) Author
2022-06-10 05:40:36
SCOTUS reiterated that "Certain [not all] CBP agents can exercise broad authority to make warrantless arrests ... up to 100 miles away from the border." Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), designated immigration officers can make warrantless arrests. [Link][Link][Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(0-1-0) Author