Access to Justice

RELEASE: In Egbert, Conservative Majority Commits Grave Error that Betrays Our Constitution

WASHINGTON, DCThis morning, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Egbert v. Boule, holding that a U.S. Border Patrol agent cannot be sued for damages for assaulting an individual on U.S. soil and retaliating against him, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. The Constitutional Accountability Center filed a brief in the case supporting the respondent Boule, and CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans had the following reaction:

The 6-3 conservative majority of the Roberts Court, once again, closes the courthouse door on individuals victimized by government abuse of power, this time holding  that federal border guards cannot be sued, even for flagrant constitutional violations. It is a grave error that betrays our Constitution.

The Constitution was written, drafted, and ratified against a legal backdrop that recognized that officers could be sued in a court of law for violating individual rights. If the Court had followed the Constitution’s text and history, it would have recognized that federal law enforcement officers, including border control guards, can be held accountable in court for violating constitutionally guaranteed rights. Instead, one of the world’s largest law enforcement forces will now be able to violate constitutionally guaranteed rights with impunity, striking a severe blow to constitutional accountability and the rule of law.

#

Resources:

CAC case page in Egbert v. Boule: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/egbert-v-boule/

CAC RELEASE: “Fourth Amendment Free Zone”? CAC Reacts to Oral Argument in Egbert v. Boule, March 2, 2022: https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/release-fourth-amendment-free-zone-cac-reacts-to-oral-argument-in-egbert-v-boule/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Smith v. Kind

In Smith v. Kind, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether qualified immunity protects prison guards from being held accountable for constitutional violations after they confined an incarcerated person in a cell without...
Access to Justice
March 4, 2026

CAC Release: Unanimous Supreme Court Rejects State-Affiliated Corporation’s Claim of Immunity from Suit

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Galette v. New Jersey...
By: Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: In Disappointing Sixth Amendment Decision, the Supreme Court Made Clear the Limits of Its Decision

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Villarreal v. Texas, a...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Access to Justice
February 12, 2026

February Newsletter: CAC Supports Everyday Americans Fighting for Their Day in Court

At every level of our judicial system, a complex set of doctrines determines what cases...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas

In United States ex rel. Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas, the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Flowers Foods v. Brock

In Flowers Foods v. Brock, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Federal Arbitration Act exempts from arbitration “last-mile” delivery drivers who transport goods between two points in the same state to their final destinations,...