Your fact-checks will appear here
A legal doctrine that protects government officials from liability for their actions, unless they have violated a clearly established constitutional right.
Federal agents do not enjoy blanket or “absolute” immunity from state criminal prosecution; instead the Constitution and courts recognize a narrower Supremacy Clause immunity for acts authorized and n...
The constitutional question turns on whether Renee Good was deprived of her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure and excessive force when an ICE agent fired into her vehicle; the videos...
Yes — but with major legal roadblocks: victims commonly cannot recover damages directly from an ICE agent by simply suing in federal court because doctrines like qualified immunity and statutory limit...
Courts apply the same Fourth Amendment “objective reasonableness” test to federal immigration agents as to local police, but recent rulings emphasize evaluating the “totality of circumstances,” which ...
Federal control over investigations of officer-involved shootings by federal agents rests on a mix of constitutional supremacy, federal criminal statutes, and prosecutorial discretion, but states reta...
When body or dash camera footage contradicts official or medical statements about an officer’s injury or use of force, outcomes have varied: videos frequently become central evidence that can refute o...
FTCA claims are statutory suits against the United States that typically allege negligence and offer state-law damages but bar punitive awards, jury trials, and are subject to state caps and administr...
When an ICE agent uses deadly force, the immediate oversight architecture combines Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ICE internal use-of-force policy reviews with parallel criminal probes by feder...