Reply With Quote
Noem could legit lose her job over this
Putting some teeth back into Bivins would be a good start
There should be strong remedies when government officials abuse and oppress people
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/204-a...er-minneapolisFor the second time in 17 days, federal law enforcement officers in Minneapolis, while purporting to carry out “immigration enforcement,” have shot and killed an American citizen (not that it would be any different if the victim were a non-citizen). Just like the killing of Renée Good on January 7 (and so much else of what federal officers are doing in and around the Twin Cities and elsewhere under the guise of law enforcement), Saturday morning’s shooting of a man multiple media organizations have identified as Alex Jeffrey Pretti once again raises the question of why it is so damned difficult to hold federal officers—and the federal government itself—accountable if and when they violate our rights.
Across various, wonkier issues of this newsletter, I’ve tried to provide the background and some introduction to how we got here:
- How the Supreme Court in 1882 embraced a much broader view of the federal government’s sovereign immunity than the text of the Cons ution supports;
- How, instead, we relied upon deeply imperfect bodies of state tort law to hold individual officers accountable, even after Congress, in 1946, finally authorized a very limited class of tort suits against the federal government directly;
- How the Supreme Court briefly (and, in my view, correctly)authorized federal suits against federal officers in 1971, only to spend the last four decades all-but-overruling that case (Bivens) on increasingly disingenuous grounds (for a shorter version of this last point, see this post);
- And how Congress, in 1988, cut off many (if not most) state tort suits against federal officers by converting them into suits under that 1946 statute (the Federal Tort Claims Act)—even if the FTCA claim wasn’t/isn’t viable.
As this capsule summary suggests, although not all of the blame belongs to the Supreme Court, much of it does. And although the Court has attempted to sell its hostility to damages suits against federal officers on the ground that courts need Congress to authorize those suits, (1) that’s never stopped the same justices from endorsing the power of federal courts to issue injunctions against federal officers without specific statutory authorization; and (2) as Justice Harlan put it in Bivens,
it would be at least anomalous to conclude that the federal judiciary . . . is powerless to accord a damages remedy to vindicate social policies which, by virtue of their inclusion in the Cons ution, are aimed predominantly at restraining the Government as an instrument of the popular will.In other words, it would be pretty dumb to hold that the government has to affirmatively authorize any remedies to enforce a Cons ution designed to constrain the government.
I wanted to write this afternoon both because writing is how I cope with the increasingly distressing shape of events and because it seems worth making four points as loudly as possible:
First, meaningful accountability for government officers isn’t—and shouldn’t be—a political or ideological issue. One can accept that we’re all going to have widely varying views on exactly which rights the Cons ution protects (and how), and still believe that, whatever rights the Cons ution recognizes, there ought to be a meaningful way to enforce them against all government officers. Otherwise, what’s the point of having those rights in the first place? A world in which the Cons ution is only enforceable against the federal government prospectively is a world in which the federal government and its officers can do whatever it wants to the people—so long as the misconduct is brief and fleeting. This is why, for instance, it has proven so much easier to enforce the Second Amendment (where government restrictions are creating forward-looking consequences) than the Fourth (where the violation is usually a one-off).
Second, under current law, it is difficult—but, contra Vice President Vance, Stephen Miller, and lots of other people, it is not impossible—to attempt to use civil and state criminal remedies to hold federal officers accountable if and when they do violate our cons utional rights. I’ve written before about “Supremacy Clause immunity,” which is what would come into play if state or local officials attempted to prosecute a federal officer for crimes committed while on their federal job. But there’s also a narrow avenue that the Supreme Court has never foreclosed to potential damages liability—where the plaintiff brings a state tort claim to vindicate their cons utional rights, a claim that arguably falls within an exception to that 1988 statute that otherwise converts those claims into (very-hard-to-win) Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the federal government (there’s more on this very legalistic point in the footnote at the end of this sentence).1 It seems to me that these approaches are increasingly worth attempting notwithstanding their long odds—because, again, what’s the alternative? That brings me to…
Third, it would take a Congress that actually thought federal officers should be liable for violating our cons utional rights about a one-sentence statute to fix the accountability gap that I (and plenty of others) have long do ented. Indeed, there are various bills already pending that would be solid steps in the right direction.2 Across all of the federal accountability controveries of my professional career—torture; warrantless wiretapping; the unlawful surveillance programs leaked by Edward Snowden; drone strikes on U.S. citiziens; the George Floyd protests; and on and on—it has boggled my mind that there isn’t bipartisan support for such legislation. And, although this may lead readers to call me “partisan,” it’s worth stressing that, at virtually every turn, the reason why these legislative proposals haven’t advanced has invariably been opposition from Republicans—not Democrats.3
Fourth, and speaking of my mind being boggled, I also continue to be more than a little disappointed in the small but significant cohort of visible, accomplished, and undeniably intelligent right-of-center law professors who have spent the last 17 days (and, really, the last 369) staying awfully quiet. I understand the reluctance to stick one’s neck out, especially in this current moment in our political culture. But it seems like this kind of reform—accountability for when federal officers break the law—is something folks should easily be able to get behind even if they’re unwilling to express a view on whether any of what sure looks like rampant lawlessness we’re seeing from this administration actually crosses the line. Again, meaningful remedies for cons utional violations ought to be something every single person can support—all the more so if their full-time job is preparing the next generation of lawyers and legal thinkers to come up in a system in which legal violations have at least the specter of producing meaningful consequences.
As longtime readers of this newsletter know, I spent a lot of time in college studying not just the violent crises of the twentieth century, but also the attmepts by legal and political systems to build an unassailable historical memory of those abuses—and, just as significantly, of those who fought to stop them. In that respect, the first image that came to my mind this morning when I learned about this latest Minneapolis shooting is a plaque that rests on the ground of the German Resistance Memorial Museum in Berlin—near the spot where Claus von Staffenburg and his co-conspirators were executed shortly after midnight on July 21, 1944 for their role in the attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler. The plaque, pictured below, is in German. But its message translates as:
You did not bear the shame.
You resisted.
You bestowed the eternally vigilant symbol of change by sacrificing your impassioned lives for freedom, justice and honor.
Hopefully, it will take us less time to realize the errors of our ways—and what ought to be a commonsense, low-hanging-fruit way to start ensuring meaningful accountability for those errors. It just shouldn’t be the case that the only way to hold the federal government accountable is to elect a new one.
Noem could legit lose her job over this
Minnesota Department of Corrections calls out DHS lies
When you've lost prison officials, you're losing the narrative
https://mn.gov/doc/about/news/combat...isinformation/
NJ Gov. Mikie Sherrill: "This is about a basically Stasi-type force of secret police that wear masks, that are unidentifiable, that are unaccountable, that have leadership in the Trump administration blatantly lying about what's going on"
Federalism is a check on a lawless and oppressive government
https://www.sos.mn.gov/about-the-off...cretary-simon/On January 24, 2026, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz with three requests that she writes would "restore the rule of law, support ICE officers, and bring an end to the chaos in Minnesota.” The third request in the letter was to allow the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to access Minnesota’s “voter rolls.”
The letter was sent on the same day a second Minnesotan was shot and killed by federal immigration enforcement agents - and the day after tens of thousands of Minnesotans peacefully marched in sub-zero temperatures for an end to the federal occupation.
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon has issued the following statement in response.
“The answer to Attorney General Bondi’s request is no. Her letter is an outrageous attempt to coerce Minnesota into giving the federal government private data on millions of U.S. Citizens in violation of state and federal law. This comes after repeated and failed attempts by the DOJ to pressure my office into providing the same data.
Minnesota’s elections are fair, accurate, honest, and secure. Every step of the way they are organized by local officials – Minnesotans who do honest, hard work to ensure their neighbors, friends, and family have access to a secure ballot.
Our office has already provided the Department of Justice a detailed explanation of how we successfully manage and secure our voter registration files. Yet, without alleging any wrongdoing by Minnesota, the DOJ continues to demand that we disclose private data such as social security and drivers’ license information. We have repeatedly offered to disclose to the DOJ voter data that is already public, without the need to reveal private data protected by state and federal law. The DOJ has declined those offers.
Attorney General Bondi knows full well that the Governor has no formal role in managing our elections or maintaining our voter registration system. She is also well aware that this specific request is the subject of active litigation with our office.
Our position on the federal government’s request to access Minnesota voting records starts and ends with the law. The law does not give the federal government the authority to obtain this private data. Minnesota is not alone in declining to disclose sensitive personal data on voters. So far, thirty-one other states have said no. DOJ is in active litigation with twenty-four of those states– and the courts have swiftly dismissed DOJ’s claims in three of them.
In Minnesota, we will continue to follow the letter of the law, which requires us to protect the private data of our voters.
It is deeply disturbing that the U.S. Attorney General would make this unlawful request a part of an apparent ransom to pay for our state’s peace and security.
More broadly, the federal government must end the unprecedented and deadly occupation of our state immediately.
The tactics used by too many ICE agents have been dangerous, destabilizing, unnecessarily cruel, and counterproductive. They are tactics that often seem aimed at instilling fear more than protecting the public.
Finally, I have been heartened by Minnesotans’ resolve thus far to remain peaceful and law-abiding. I want to echo the calls by public officials of all kinds to de-escalate, even when the federal government appears to want escalation. We should continue to meet darkness and division with light and compassion.”
NY Gov. Kathy Hochul calls for Noem and Bovino's resignation
Secretary Noem has forfeited her right to lead. I’m calling on her to resign.
Gregory Bovino must also be fired.
No one, not an ICE agent, not a federal officer, not a president, is above the law.
I don't think she will but she 1000% absolutely should. I think she should also be open to civil complaints in court.Noem could legit lose her job over this
Republican governor of Vermont
Sic 'em
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
