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.



CAC case page in Egbert v. Boule:

CAC RELEASE: “Fourth Amendment Free Zone”? CAC Reacts to Oral Argument in Egbert v. Boule, March 2, 2022:


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


More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court rejects artificial limit on liability for speech-based retaliation by government officers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino, a case in...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Access to Justice
May 9, 2024

RELEASE: In overbroad ruling, conservative majority restricts the rights of innocent car owners whose vehicles are seized by the government

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Culley v. Marshall, a...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Williams v. Washington

In Williams v. Washington, the Supreme Court is considering whether states may force civil rights litigants who bring claims against state officials in state court under Section 1983 to first exhaust their administrative remedies.
Access to Justice
April 12, 2024

RELEASE: Court Unanimously Rejects Atextual “Transportation Industry” Requirement for FAA Exemption, Allowing Truck Drivers Their Day in Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
March 20, 2024

RELEASE: Justices Weigh Immunity for Government Officials Who Target Political Adversaries with Arrest

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Gonzalez v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Access to Justice
February 20, 2024

RELEASE: Court Grapples Once Again with Federal Arbitration Act’s Exemption for Transportation Workers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Bissonnette v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen