Your fact-checks will appear here
The Supreme Court case of Martin v. United States and its relevance to the discretionary function exception in FTCA suits.
’s leading precedent on immunity for federal officers is the 19th‑century decision Cunningham v. (In re) Neagle, which established federal‑officer immunity from state prosecution when officers act to ...
The Supreme Court since 2020 has sharply narrowed private lawsuits against federal officers, including ICE agents, by eviscerating Bivens remedies and steering many claims into statutory channels like...
The doctrine that can shield federal officers from state criminal prosecution is rooted in the Supremacy Clause and was first articulated in In re Neagle , but the Supreme Court’s recent decision in M...
The discretionary function exception (DFE) to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) has repeatedly been invoked to bar FTCA suits arising from conduct, with courts applying the two-step Berkovitz–Gaubert...
Two Supreme Court precedents define the modern landscape for suing federal immigration officers for damages: the 1971 decision that created a judicially implied damages remedy (Bivens), and later deci...