SCOTUS Rules That Federal Agents Can Be Sued When They Violate Your Rights

The ruling also strikes at something deeper: namely, that the tide may be turning on how we are able to hold public officials accountable when they violate our constitutional rights.

They then sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which prevents the government "From substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion" and authorizes litigants to pursue "Appropriate relief" when such rights are infringed on.

In his ruling, Thomas invoked Section 1983., the country's foremost civil rights statute that permits Americans to sue public officials when they impinge on their rights.

It's all the more troubling that the Supreme Court did exactly what Thomas is cautioning against when they created qualified immunity, t.he legal doctrine that makes it considerably harder to hold public servants accountable for civil rights violations.

In deciding Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the high court ruled that state officials should be shielded from federal lawsuits under Section 1983 unless the misbehavior alleged by the plaintiff has been outlined almost exactly in a prior court precedent.

The cops "Did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment," according to the judges, because no previous case law existed expressly decreeing that stealing violates one's rights.

There's something significant about Thomas's opinion, which cites the same civil rights statute and faulty line of reasoning used to conjure qualified immunity out of thin air in the 1980s.

https://reason.com/2020/12/17/supreme-court-rules-tanzin-v-tanvir-federal-agents-can-be-sued-when-they-violate-your-rights/