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
April 28, 2026

CAC Release: In Cisco v. Doe Argument, Justices Grapple with the Scope of Liability Under Two Critical Human Rights Statutes

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Cisco Systems...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
April 27, 2026

Human Rights Suit Over Cisco Work for China Heads to Supreme Court

Bloomberg Law
CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen was interviewed by Bloomberg Law about our brief in Cisco...
Access to Justice
April 17, 2026

The Most Offensive Thing a Supreme Court Justice Can Do Is Be Honest About the Supreme Court

Balls & Strikes
This Week In Other Stuff We Appreciated Judges Overseeing Louisiana’s Landmark Oil Cases Have Financial...
Access to Justice
April 20, 2026

CAC Release: Court Considers Whether to Expand or Restrict Authority of Federal Courts to Collaterally Review State Court Judgments

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in T.M. v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Michelle Berger
Access to Justice
April 14, 2026

Doctors Hope Justices Maintain Shield Against Med Mal Suits

CAC Kendall Fellow Michelle Berger discussed CAC's amicus brief in T.M. v. University of Maryland with Law360....
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Cisco Systems v. Doe

In Cisco Systems v. Doe, the Supreme Court is considering, among other questions, whether the Torture Victim Protection Act imposes liability on those who aid and abet torture.