We had a 6 3 decision dropped from the Supreme Court this past,
what I think it was about Tuesday or Wednesday.
But essentially the right leading Supreme Court gutted established precedent really
on when you can sue a federal agent for violating your civil rights.
Now, the decision effectively gives border patrol agents who violate
the Constitution, gives them complete immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold
them accountable for this unreasonable searches and also uses of excessive force.
Now, we know this from the Wall Street Journal.
Congress hasn't expressly authorized such lawsuits and courts shouldn't interfere.
They interfere, they are allowed.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court's conservative majority, Wednesday's
decision was the latest in recent decades to retreat from a 1971 precedent known as
Bivens that implied a right to sue federal officers for violating
the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Yes, Bivens had been established, and it's been with some 51 years but
of course we have this right leaning Supreme Court that has gutted it.
And here are some of the details about the specific case.
Now, this case was brought in 2017 by Robert Boule, who owned the Smugglers inn,
that's a bed and
breakfast located in Washington state along the Canadian border.
Boule had a complicated relationship with the feds according to the court's opinion.
He sometimes served as a paid confidential informant helping agents identify people
crossing the border illegally near his property.
He also provided lodging and shuttle service to those crossing illegally.
In March 2014 he told Eric Egbert a border patrol agent,
that a Turkish citizen was scheduled to arrive at the inn.
When the guests car reached the inn,
Mr Egbert entered Boule's property without a warrant.
Now Boule said that he told the agent to leave only to be thrown against
the vehicle and then to the ground.
Now Mr Boule ended up suing that agent Egbert,
for violating his Fourth Amendment rights and
the ruling initially didn't go Boule's way as the New York times has reported.
A federal child judge dismissed the case saying that Bivens decision did not allow
the source of claims Mr Boule pressed.
A three judge panel on the US Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit however,
unanimously reversed that dismissal allowing Mr Boule to pursue both theories.
Now Ebert's lawyer argued that allowing Boule's claims
would undermine the ability of border patrol agents to engage
in searches as part of their immigrant enforcement responsibilities.
The by administration back the agents position.
And ultimately, well, he prevailed at the Supreme Court,
that's the agent who prevailed.
So, what did the three other justices that are more liberal,
what did they say about this?
This poll the Washington post.
In the dissent, the court's three liberal justices said they would have allowed
the Washington state man's lawsuit to proceed against the federal agent.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the court had absolutely immunized from
liability, thousands of border patrol agents,
no matter how egregious the misconduct or resultant injury.
Now Sotomayor wrote that the majority on Wednesday had to be written and stretched
its own legal standard beyond recognition to close the door to Boule's claim.
The conduct at issue, she noted took place on US soil and
the injury was to a US citizen.
This case does not remotely implicate national security.
She wrote, adding that congress has not provided that federal enforcement officers
may enter private property near a border at any time or for any purpose.
Now this decision,
the implications they are far reaching because it basically means that border
agents that they can ignore the Fourth Amendment and do whatever they want.
Unfortunately, the only remedy or
relief that we would have as citizens is to file a grievance that would end up
being investigated by law enforcement themselves.
And so this case, Egbert, what it does is it forecloses any opportunity
to get financial compensation for violations of our civil rights.
This really shows again how having a right wing Supreme Court majority is stripping
individual of their civil rights and any remedies that might actually help reduce
any kind of violations of our civil rights by way of creating accountability jake.
Yeah.
So this is very troubling decisions for reasons I'm gonna explain.
But first, let's note that, I like bowls sense of humor.
He named his bed and breakfast.
The smaller goes in and he literally smuggles in, people into the country.
That's amazing.
It's just, it was very on the nose.
right?
So and but to be fair he was caught with a Turkish citizen?
Let him go, let him go.
Okay, In all seriousness.
A lot of times, the defendants that are in this or in this case,
the plaintiff that brings the case is not necessarily sympathetic, right?
But that that's not how the law works.
You don't have to love the guy to say that he has constitutional rights.
And if he doesn't have constitutional rights,
you don't have constitutional rights.
And so, this is a reversal of precedent, which the Supreme Court, all the justices
when they were going in front of the Senate were like, no, I love precedent.
Are you kidding?
I was dating president earlier went out for like four years.
Okay.
Love precedent.
Now they're in charge like President President, That's a good one.
No row.
You're gone, warrantless searches your back Fourth Amendment.
You're gone Bivens gone.
Okay, So that court decision no longer relevant apparently.
And so first off, if you're this means you can't sue the Border Patrol for
violating your rights, including your Fourth Amendment rights.
This also means they can go into your
house into your property without a warrant, it's lawlessness.
Now, okay, now, right wing, are you sure you like it?
Because now the jack booted thugs of the federal government can come into your
property and take away your rights and your Supreme Court?
You're right where you are on the Supreme Court just allowed it.
Are you sure you like it?
Because I don't think you're gonna like it when they start doing it to you.
And so very likely it will also apply to other federal agents.
So for now it's Border Patrol, but
everything the court indicated seems to show that they will expand it to all other
federal agents because it's the same logic.
It's and it's getting rid of the same precedent and Bivens.
But even if they didn't here will show you a map,
how much of the country does this cover?
Well, border Patrol agents can operate within 100 miles of the border.
Well, that covers almost all of the major cities And
hence 60% of the American population now can have their home barged into or
any property by federal agents as specifically border patrol,
and you can't sue them, they have immunity.
They can do whatever they like in that context.
So, enjoy.
Yeah, it's very interesting.
You're absolutely right about people.
Not necessarily seeing how this is going to impact them.
It's almost like they're kind of cafeteria constitutionalist people where they like
the enforcement of the Second Amendment, but
Fourth Amendment when it has circumstances like this.
It's okay, we're kind of completely ignore it.
And as a result they're gonna end up with no constitutional civil rights whatsoever.
It's just a matter of time