Your fact-checks will appear here
The legal doctrine of qualified immunity and its application in cases involving federal officers, particularly in the context of Bivens claims.
Federal courts have largely treated the act of — including federal agents like — in public as protected speech under the First Amendment, while allowing reasonable time, place and manner restrictions ...
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...
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 agents violate civil rights, the avenues for consequences include internal administrative discipline, civil lawsuits (often routed through the Federal Tort Claims Act or constitutional claims), a...
Across the reporting provided, there is no documented instance in recent years where a federal or state investigation into an agent’s use of deadly force resulted in criminal charges; investigative pr...
—principally in civil suits and in criminal prosecutions by states—have substantially narrowed routes to accountability for officers accused of excessive force, often preventing trials or damages even...
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 ...
once allowed individuals to sue federal officers for constitutional violations, but its scope is now tightly constrained: plaintiffs can name individual officers, not agencies, and courts have sharply...
The in (decided May 15, 2025) unanimously rejected the ’s “moment-of-threat” rule and reaffirmed that under the must be assessed by the totality of the circumstances, including events leading up to th...
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...