As in, he lodged a complaint to the CBP who told him to get lost.
That is incorrect. He filed through the federal system and didn’t think he was rewarded enough. Boo hoo he didn’t hit the lottery like he wanted.
It has been a crime for over half a century to bring a gun to the airport. It is illegl to take a gun on a plane as well. That is nothing new. Also airlines and airports are not public places. It is totally legal for them to say no gun there. It is no different from a church or Walmart or any other private business saying if you want to do business with me (my store or place) then you can’t bring a gun. Unless you are arguing that every business must allow people to carry guns in them and the business owner gets no choice in the matter.
Again airlines are a private business. They can make a rule to search every passenger and you are free to go nope I won’t fly under those conditions. Just like gym clubs and private pools can say you can only pay to swim if you follow these rules, like only these types of swim wear are allowed.
Flying isn’t a right, just like driving a car is not a right either.
You’re deliberately ignoring the point re: this decision… Since this is the second time you’ve done that, I’ll let your wrongness speak for itself.
9 Likes
So, people within 100 miles of the border don’t deserve civil rights because he dealt drugs? That’s not how civil rights work. They protect all of us, or they protect no one, and we’re all fucked. YOU included sunshine.
14 Likes
Now watch him pull out the “if your [sic] not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about” line.
9 Likes
June 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday made it nearly impossible for Americans to sue federal law enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights, further narrowing the already limited path to hold U.S. officials accountable for even egregious misuse of their authority.
The court’s ruling grants actual absolute immunity to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents. That’s nearly 20,000 officers whose work sometimes involves detaining migrant children and flying drones over protests to help with “situational awareness.” Border patrol agents have more power than local police in many contexts, and they engage in the full range of ordinary law enforcement activity – often far away from the border.
The ruling represents a grave threat to civil liberties: It sets a standard lenient and vague enough to be construed in many cases as blanket immunity for law enforcement officers at the FBI, DEA and ICE, for example.
The ruling gives border patrol agents near unfettered authority to search, seize and detain Americans, without any consequences if they overstep their authority or even kill someone. And it signals to lower courts that other federal officers should also be absolutely immune from suit.
There is no need for hypotheticals to conjure images of unrecognizable government agents targeting citizens for indiscriminate beatings and arbitrary arrests – and doing so under the color of law
That’s almost exactly what happened just two years ago, when the Trump administration deployed federal law enforcement officers in a violentcrackdown on the mostly-peaceful 2020 protest movement against police brutality. Protesters in Portland, Oregon, reported that “uniformed personnel without name tags or agency badges snatched young people off the streets into unmarked vans before eventually releasing them,” Reuters reported in July 2020.
Jones told me that the Department of Homeland Security has authority to reduce CBP’s arbitrary 100-mile scope of jurisdiction.
Still, “If Congress doesn’t take another look, what we’ll have, increasingly, is a national police force with authority in large sections of the U.S., and which can’t be held accountable for violating the rights of immigrants or American citizens,” Jones said.
14 Likes
12 Likes
If you think this guy is bad, look up Ernesto Miranda from Miranda vs Arizona. Regardless of the goodness or badness of the petitioner, losing civil rights is losing civil rights. We wouldn’t justify eliminating Miranda rights just because Miranda himself was a vile asshole.
15 Likes
13 Likes
I don’t know what you think you’re proteking - but it’s not my civil rights.
Philly is within that map zone. We don’t share much space with Canadia. Too bad for that. Great place.
13 Likes
Freedom of travel is covered by the Constitution.
And Airports aren’t private businesses. About half are directly owned by a municipal government & the other half are run by authorities set up as an arm of those governments.
“Justice William O. Douglas, held that the federal government may not restrict the right to travel without due process:
The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that “liberty” is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. … Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, … may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.“
You don’t seem to have many - if any - facts straight on this subject.
13 Likes
It seems to me that you’re focusing strongly on the case and the ruling itself, without looking at the broader implications, as discussed in the OP, that the rest of us have been talking about. One may choose not to go to the airport, true… but when the zone of powers granted to the Border Patrol is expanded far beyond said airport’s physical boundaries, how much choice does one really have to “opt out”? These zones now extend over entire cities and more, introducing conflicts between federal interests and private business’ rights to make rules in their own spaces… not to mention it covers many, many people’s homes (including mine in Detroit.) It is one thing to say, “flying isn’t a right”; it is another thing to have airport restrictions apply to you in your own living room.
15 Likes
But… but… INDIVIDUALISM… also, if you’re not breaking the law, you don’t have to worry! /s
12 Likes
Individual rights and groups government intrusion seem to be a mite in conflict.
10 Likes
For the benefit of our Constitutional scholar – if he hasn’t scuttled away yet for another seven years – I’ll add that not everyone who works at the airport is an employee of the airport.
11 Likes
Nope. At the airport I used to work at there were about 1,000 city employees & 19,000 other badged employees at the various airlines, concessions, consultants, construction workers etc.
Most weren’t airline employees either.
12 Likes
As I said.
He didn’t get anything. The CBP rejected his claim.
That’s the “federal system” you referred to.
An agency violates your rights, you get to complain to that agency. They grant or deny you redress according to their whim.
Now, thanks to this decision, there is no judicial oversight of such claims.
Technically, only of “border” claims where “national security” overrides the usual legal redress. But as Gorsuch and the dissent both point out (from different perspectives) everything in this decision boils down to “courts should not be able to grant remedies like this”.
12 Likes
Like others have mentioned above, this was already the lived reality* for many people. It’s still scary to see it codified like this.
*This covers pretty much my whole State (Maine). And I have friends that live on sailboats part of the year, and they already had no protections against unwarranted searches.
10 Likes
When we’re talking about somebody getting beat up by federal agents, “the guy was scum” is both irrelevant and also dehumanizing
If you want to call Elon Musk or Johnny Depp “scum,” go for it—the point in those cases is not to undermine their human rights
See how it works?
10 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
