jspencerbryan

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:

Republicans won’t even consider stopping this gerrymandering nonsense until Democrats get serious and redistrict them out of everywhere possible.

But its the left, right?

I’m afraid this might be the best response. Only when faced with the absurdity of their own scheme will they possibly engage in a truce.

Much easier to break things than rebuild what was broken. Once its broken, its difficult to unwind the clock.

RIP Hulu subscription (2011-2025)

Blockbuster report and recommendation from the Eastern District of Oklahoma: Tribal citizens have no Section 1983 rights for constitutional deprivations committed by cross-deputized LEOs employed by the state.

Apparently, you can also put your car in this trust and it relieves you of any obligation to obtain a drivers license license plate or registration

Rewind to 2016 and recall how the R establishment reacted to Trump before eventually falling in line. Same vibes.

There will now be 10,000 new ICE agents & 100,000 new detention beds--and few safeguards protecting people from constitutional violations by the feds.

Time for states to pass laws allowing people to sue fed agents. Read about it these "converse-1983" statutes here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Requiring jailers to read Supreme Court opinions places too great a burden on jail staff. Qualified immunity.

If golf keeps him from making decisions, play all the golf you want

important new voting rights law in Colorado

don’t miss it:

Bravo to the military band who got away with that one 👏👏👏

We’ve entered a cold civil war where its okay to deploy troops and deny resources based entirely on your political alignment

I’m getting civil war vibes

The media statements are outside her core duties as a prosecutor and therefore not entitled to immunity.

Also true for people who use free versions of email platforms like Gmail.

We need one of those regional dialect maps for how people say “voir dire.”

Imagine my surprise when, litigating a 1983 case in Oklahoma, I was reassigned to a judge on this court.

Bravo!

The panel concluded in the prior opinion that the plaintiff’s version of events had reflected not only an unlawful arrest, but also excessive force. Ibarra v. Lee, No. 22-5094, 2023 WL 6939236, at *10–12 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2023) (unpublished). For the claim of excessive force, the panel reasoned that the jury could reasonably find • no suspicion of Mr. Martinez for a prior crime, • no weapon, and • no threat to Officer Lee. Id. at 12. Without a threat, weapon, or suspected crime, police officers couldn’t reasonably believe that the Fourth Amendment would allow them to shoot Mr. Martinez. We have often held that even before March 2020, the Constitution had clearly prohibited an officer from shooting a suspect who poses no immediate threat. E.g., Huff v. Reeves, 996 F.3d 1082, 1084–85, 1090 (10th Cir. 2021) (January 2016); Reavis v. Frost, 967 F.3d 978, 982, 995 (10th

10th Cir. holds that it was clearly established law that officer could not shoot (and kill) homeowner while serving a protective order where there was no suspicion of a crime, no weapon, and no threat.

No QI.

www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/f...

CA10: You can’t shoot a non-threatening dog, it’s “common sense.” QI denied @radleybalko.bsky.social

www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/f...

I believe this is a federal case. Illinois law does not apply.

Tulsa did this to its “Brady Arts District” switching from KKK businessman Tate Brady to photographer Matthew Brady, who had no connection to the city

Inside the manslaughter conviction of a Las Cruces police officer | Searchlight New Mexico Before Brad Lunsford was charged with manslaughter for the 2022 shooting of Presley Eze, Searchlight New Mexico analyzed hundreds of police shootings across the state. We showed that officers are almo...

357 police shootings in New Mexico over 10 years...

"only three police departments — New York, Houston and Los Angeles, three of the five largest cities in the nation — actually killed more people than Albuquerque police did during that timeframe"

Reporting by @cosmicbowling.bsky.social

These people are protected by qualified immigration everyday. Why would they think the law applies to them?

Probably doesn’t need that many if he has the world’s richest man promising to primary any dissenter

Eventually they clash with a 2A auditor and everyone wins.