By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Justice Kavanaugh suggested that Americans roughed up by ICE agents can sue in federal court. However, civil rights attorneys are pushing back, noting the court’s conservative majority has made such cases difficult to win. The court has limited the ability to sue federal law enforcement for excessive force claims in prior decisions, including border incidents. Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing the ruling allows targeting of Latinos.
Read the original article here
Kavanaugh faces blowback for claiming Americans can sue over encounters with ICE, and this is a critical point of discussion. Justice Kavanaugh’s recent statement that Americans can take legal action against ICE agents in federal court is generating substantial criticism, and it’s easy to see why. The core of the problem lies in the perceived disconnect between Kavanaugh’s words and the practical realities of pursuing such lawsuits.
The crux of the issue is that while, technically, Americans *can* sue, the Supreme Court, with Kavanaugh often in the majority, has made it increasingly difficult to win these cases. Civil rights attorneys and legal experts are quick to point out this disparity. The court has, in recent years, limited avenues for individuals to seek redress for excessive force claims against federal law enforcement. This includes incidents at the border, where ICE agents are frequently involved. The sentiment is that Kavanaugh’s statement, taken at face value, ignores the hurdles people face when trying to hold government actors accountable.
One of the most significant obstacles is qualified immunity, which protects government officials from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, and there’s no other way to say the legal budget of the government will out match an average American who sues the government. This is why several legal experts agree that, in practice, winning these cases is an uphill battle. Add to this the cost of litigation, which often includes securing legal representation, and the process becomes even more daunting for those who have been subject to potential misconduct.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that individuals impacted by ICE encounters may have difficulty finding attorneys willing to take on these cases. The challenges multiply for immigrants who may be subjected to violence or even deported before their claim can even be heard. The comment about the Trump administration winning 95% of cases that reach the Supreme Court highlights the perception of a conservative bias, making it seem almost impossible to win.
Furthermore, there are concerns about how the court’s rulings are impacting the ability of people to seek justice. Some view Kavanaugh’s statement as a flippant suggestion, completely disregarding the obstacles individuals face when attempting to sue federal law enforcement. This perspective views the Court as complicit in creating a system where justice is often out of reach for those who have been harmed by the government.
The criticism also touches on the broader implications of the court’s decisions on government accountability. Critics are concerned that the court is diminishing the ability of people to hold government officials accountable. The potential impact of this is that it could discourage potential plaintiffs from seeking legal remedies. The effect is to make the idea of suing ICE agents, especially for the average person, impractical, even impossible.
The legal and practical difficulties of suing are particularly concerning in light of the nature of ICE’s operations. The focus is on roving patrols, where agents can detain people, and encounters may involve the use of force. Therefore, those most likely to be in a situation where they might need to sue are often among the most vulnerable and marginalized members of society.
The controversy underscores the tension between the theoretical availability of legal remedies and the practical realities of navigating the court system, a legal system that some view as fundamentally unfair. There is a feeling that Kavanaugh’s statement fails to address these complexities. It underscores the importance of access to justice and the need to balance the protection of individual rights with the need for government accountability. The issue is whether the Supreme Court is fulfilling its role in safeguarding those rights.