The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that conducting a stop and frisk at gunpoint was reasonable based on officers’ observations of a suspect’s conduct.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits are divided on temporarily halting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from enforcing its arrest and deportation guidance.

Last week, in a 6-3 majority decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a law enforcement officer’s violation of Miranda does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s sweeping decision in Egbert v. Boule precludes almost any new kinds of Bivens claims against federal employees, opening the door to a future overturn.

The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff bringing a claim of malicious prosecution for a Fourth Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. §1983 only needs to show prosecution ended without a conviction.

Supreme Court justices were critical during oral argument of allowing the federal government to prosecute a defendant in federal court previously convicted in a federally-operated tribal court.

In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined how transnational organized crime and terrorist networks engage in drug trafficking, human trafficking, and money laundering.

In late December, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced the Constitutional Accountability Act. In the proposed legislation, citizens would be able to sue the United States, federal agencies, and federal law enforcement for violations of constitutional rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected certiorari on Petitioner Erik Egbert’s request for the Court to reverse Bivens, the 1971 case that allows federal employees to be sued in their personal capacities for violating certain constitutional rights.

Bivens may be under reconsideration as the U.S. Supreme Court re-circulated a petition asking the high court to do just that. The petition argues the Ninth Circuit went too far by expanding Bivens, an ideal vehicle to overturn.

Whether law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they knowingly violated their training by retaliating against a person for filming an arrest the officers made in public, was submitted this month for the U.S. Supreme Court’s consideration.

In recent years, federal law enforcement officers have been the subject of increasing scrutiny from the media, public, and politicians.

Law enforcement cannot place a resisting person in a prone position regardless of other factors, the Supreme Court held this week. “Such a per se rule would contravene the careful, context-specific analysis” the Court requires.

Yesterday, in an opinion authored by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court issued an order on United States v. Lange, and held that the flight of a suspected misdemeanant does not always justify the warrantless entry of a police officer into a home. FEDagent previously reported on this case when the Court granted certiorari.

In February 2016, Officer James Saylor of the Crow Police Department was traveling on a public right-of-way that passes through the Crow Reservation in Montana. Saylor saw a truck parked on the side of the highway, and pulled up to see if its occupants needed assistance. Saylor approached the truck and spoke to the driver, Joshua James Cooley.

“Community caretaking” does not create a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home, a unanimous Supreme Court recently held.

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to review whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside of the home without a license. This marks the first time in over a decade that the Court will weigh in on the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court last week heard oral argument on whether the “community caretaking” exception allows law enforcement to enter a home for the purposes of the occupant’s health and safety.

On March 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.

When a district court addresses the merits of a Federal Tort Claims Act claim in its decision dismissing that claim for failing to legally state a claim, the FTCA bars the plaintiffs from bringing any Bivens claim on the same subject matter, the Supreme Court held today.