[ad_1]
Eight years ago, a U.S. Border Patrol agent got into a fight with a bed-and-breakfast owner in Blaine, Wash. Now, the facts of that fracas, as presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, may shape whether federal law enforcement officers can be sued generally for actions taken while performing their jobs.
In March 2014, bed-and-breakfast owner Robert Boule says Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert was interested in a guest, who was due to arrive from Turkey via New York. Boule alleges that Egbert refused to leave his property, and once the car driving the guest arrived, he attempted to search it without a warrant. Boule says he stepped between the car and Egbert, at which point the agent shoved him, “grabbed him and pushed him to the ground.” Boule says the encounter left him with back and hip injuries severe enough to require him to seek medical treatment. Egbert ultimately concluded the guest was in the country lawfully and left. Boule alleges that when he complained to Egbert’s supervisor about the incident, Egbert contacted the IRS, who then investigated Boule’s business.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
In 2017, Boule sued Egbert for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The claim has since worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments on Wednesday. The justices’ decision could have sweeping implications far beyond the two men’s dispute. A broad court ruling could shape whether and how federal Border Patrol agents—or federal law enforcement officers generally—can be sued for alleged wrongdoing. “This case goes to the heart of the rule of law and fundamental principles of constitutional accountability,” says David H. Gans, the director of the human rights, civil rights and citizenship program at the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed a brief in support of Boule.
The case hinges on the 1971 Supreme Court decision Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which allowed federal lawsuits to be brought against…
[ad_2]
Source : time
