Matteo Godi

I do want to go back to putting this case in the broader context because I think it's important to understand how we got here. Historically, the whole way that the tort liability regime worked for government misconduct was that this Court and state courts

looked to existing common law causes of action and focused on immunity defenses as the way of calibrating the harm that citizens and others faced when injured by government officers against the need to protect officers acting in good faith, back to Judge Hand in Gregoire versus Biddle. The Court struck this balance by fashioning immunity defenses where the fight would be over whether the officer was entitled to immunity or not. And for law enforcement officers specifically, this Court has long rejected the argument that there should be any context in which law enforcement officers, because of the frequency with which they interact with average individuals, because of the nature of their interactions, because of the powers they have to search, to seize, to arrest in this context, to use lethal force, did not justify absolute immunity and instead justified a more narrower, qualified kind of immunity for those most likely to come face-to-face with private citizens. Distilled to its simplest, the government's position in this case is that

officers in what is self-described as the nation's largest law enforcement agency should have a functional absolute immunity at least where foreign nationals are concerned. And our submission is that that is not consistent with how this Court has always understood the relationship between causes of action and immunity defenses in this context. It is not required by any of this Court's Bivens decisions. It does not abide by this Court's suggestion in Abbasi that there are strong reasons and powerful reasons to retain Bivens in this context. And it would eliminate the one deterrence that is meaningfully available to ensure that officers in the nation's largest law enforcement agency are complying with the law.

It's worth asking how differently things might look on the ground right now if #SCOTUS hadn't eviscerated Bivens—and made it all-but impossible to bring damages suits against federal officers (like ICE agents) who violate our constitutional rights.

This is from my rebuttal in Hernández v. Mesa:

02.10.2025 17:46 — 👍 1547    🔁 540    💬 38    📌 10

Sincerely wondering: what remedies does Justice Kavanaugh believe are and should be available in federal court these days for excessive force violations by federal immigration officials?

08.09.2025 16:55 — 👍 136    🔁 42    💬 9    📌 3

Fiona definitely did not find the “lighted squib” case as engaging as I do!

28.08.2025 17:53 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

First day of torts @uscgould.bsky.social? ✅ It was so much fun to see the reactions of 1Ls when presented with the choice between negligence v. strict liability (especially at 8:00 AM!). This is a going to be a great class!

26.08.2025 00:44 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

Ep. #11 - Kousisis v. United States In our latest episode of “Court Briefs,” host Kannon Shanmugam and colleague Matteo Godi dive into the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Kousisis v. United States—a case that resolves a long-stand...

In the latest episode of Court Briefs, my colleague (and soon-to-be USC law professor) @matteogodi.bsky.social joins me to talk about the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kousisis v. United States, on the scope of the federal wire-fraud statute:

29.05.2025 09:52 — 👍 3    🔁 2    💬 0    📌 0

Truly a dream come true to go on @strictscrutiny.bsky.social — somehow the peerless @leahlitman.bsky.social managed to make talking about even these depressing legal developments lots of fun

26.05.2025 12:28 — 👍 65    🔁 11    💬 2    📌 1

Much of the reporting notes this will hurt schools that rely on foreign students to boost their finances. But, really, this primarily hurts the students—including many on financial aid, seeking a visa to become the first in their families to graduate from college. I was one of them. Just terrible.

27.05.2025 18:33 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

The famous rallying cry was “no more Souters.” But I wonder whether, in this fractious time, we actually need more David Souters, rather than fewer. On this gray morning, the world certainly feels like a poorer place without David Souter in it. RIP.

09.05.2025 13:58 — 👍 23    🔁 9    💬 1    📌 0

I’m going out on a limb here by guessing that the pawing followed by a sneeze (clear sign of annoyance) plus a yawn-bark-yawn (???) means she is done with tort law for the evening

24.04.2025 21:44 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

Anthony Sebok

Jotwell Torts:
Anthony Sebok, The Return of Private Law, JOTWELL (April 24, 2025) (reviewing Yotam Kaplan, Adi Libson, & Gideon Parchomovsky, The Renaissance of Private Law, 19 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1427 (2025)), torts.jotwell.com/the-return-o....

24.04.2025 13:54 — 👍 0    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 0

Thank you so much, Lindsay! I’m super excited!

02.04.2025 00:32 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

The Rights and Wrongs of Constitutional Torts - Torts Matteo Godi, Section 1983: A Strict Liability Statutory Tort, 113 Cal. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming, 2025), available at SSRN (Aug. 13, 2024).John C.P. GoldbergThe federal civil rights law known as 42…

The Rights and Wrongs of Constitutional Torts - Torts buff.ly/fmLMXTf

27.03.2025 22:11 — 👍 3    🔁 1    💬 0    📌 0

As an immigrant (🇮🇹) and first-gen college grad (🧑🏻‍🎓), I wouldn’t be here without the village of loved ones, mentors, and friends who helped me along the way. You know who you are (if you’re even reading this!). Grazie di cuore!

27.03.2025 18:28 — 👍 4    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

And I guess now is about as good a time as any to share some exciting personal news: in a few months, I’ll be joining the faculty at the University of Southern California (@gould.usc.edu) as an assistant professor of law! (2/3)

27.03.2025 18:28 — 👍 5    🔁 0    💬 2    📌 0

I’m immensely grateful to Dean John C.P. Goldberg (@hls.harvard.edu) for his kind and thoughtful review, over at Jotwell, of my forthcoming article in the California Law Review on Section 1983 and tort law. (1/3)

27.03.2025 18:27 — 👍 3    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

To my 4 followers, if you’re wondering what to expect… It probably will be a whole lot of nothing, with occasional legal commentary broken up by adorable floof!

02.03.2025 20:14 — 👍 4    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

Hi! 👋🏼 I’m new here. For the past few years, I’ve spent the day working as an appellate lawyer and the night writing about torts. Not sure I’ve done half a decent job at either! (1/2)

02.03.2025 20:13 — 👍 3    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0