Mounting Legal Challenges Seek to Hold Federal Agents Accountable for Constitutional Violations
Table of Contents
Meta Description: A growing movement aims to empower citizens to sue federal agents – like those at ICE and CBP – for violating their constitutional rights, addressing a critical gap in the rule of law.
Recent incidents, particularly in minnesota, have brought renewed scrutiny to the actions of federal agents and fueled a legal battle to establish greater accountability. The right to record on-duty officers – specifically, the right to record on-duty officers – are fueling a legal battle to establish greater accountability.The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other advocates are pushing for legislative changes to allow individuals to seek redress when federal agents violate their constitutional rights.
The Erosion of Accountability
The core of the issue lies in a legal disparity. since 1871, individuals have been able to sue state and local officials for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law enacted in response to widespread violence against Black people during Reconstruction. However, no comparable federal statute exists, leaving a notable gap in legal recourse when federal agents are accused of misconduct.
This gap was partially addressed in 1971 by the Supreme Court case Bivens v. Six Unknown FBI Agents. The Court ruled that individuals could sue federal officials for damages resulting from violations of the Fourth Amendment. As Justice Brennan wrote in the majority opinion, “Historically, damages have been regarded as the ordinary remedy for an invasion of personal interests in liberty.” The ruling affirmed “the very essence of civil liberty” – the right to legal protection against injury.
Though, in recent years, the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the scope of Bivens, making it increasingly difficult to pursue such claims. The Court has dismissed cases involving alleged constitutional violations like strip searches and shootings across the border. In 2022, a six-to-three decision rejected a damages claim against a Border Patrol agent accused of excessive force during a smuggling investigation. Justice Gorsuch,while acknowledging similarities to the original Bivens case,argued the ruling was necessary to prevent the courts from “assuming legislative authority.” Last year, the Court unanimously declined to extend Bivens protections to cases of excessive force in prisons.
The Case for New Legislation
These rulings have prompted calls for legislative action. Advocates argue that without a clear statutory right to sue, federal agents operate with a degree of impunity that undermines the rule of law. “When an armed agent of the government breaks the law, the civilian thay injure must be made whole,” advocates assert, emphasizing that accountability encourages lawful behavior.
The EFF is actively supporting efforts to fill this legal void, including California Senate Bill 747 (S.B. 747). This state-level legislation, dubbed the “no Kings Act” by its author, senator scott Wiener, aims to empower individuals to sue federal officials for constitutional violations within CaliforniaS jurisdiction. Protect Democracy,a non-profit organization,has also drafted a model bill,the “Universal Constitutional Remedies Act,” for other states to consider. Professor Akhil amar has termed this approach a “converse 1983,” mirroring the Reconstruction-era law but applying it to federal agents.
States Step In to Protect Constitutional rights
Despite potential concerns about federal preemption – the principle that federal law overrides state law when conflicts arise – legal experts believe these state laws are constitutional. as one legal explainer noted, such legislation “furthers the ultimate supremacy of the federal Constitution by helping people vindicate their fundamental constitutional rights.”
The push for state-level remedies comes as the demand for accountability intensifies, particularly in cases where individuals are exercising their First Amendment rights. The recent deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, both of whom were reportedly filming federal agents at the time of the incidents, underscore the importance of protecting the right to record police activity. Evidence gathered by witnesses filming these events has, in some instances, contradicted initial claims made by government leaders.
The EFF and its allies maintain that guaranteeing the right to sue federal agents for damages is not merely a legal issue, but a fundamental requirement for preserving digital rights and upholding the rule of law. They continue to advocate for both state and federal legislation to ensure that those harmed by federal misconduct have a meaningful path to justice.
