Mediaboss Marketing

GLASGOW: I really didn't have the safety net, best safe place for myself to go to. So I went out and I tried to find it in the streets. I was good with numbers. I was good with dealing with people. I knew how to connect. And I grew up around a lot of influential Italians, and people in our community who had those connections in the streets.

CHAKRABARTI: On May 1st, 2004, Tyrique got a phone call. Someone told him his sister was involved in a fight. By the time he got there, the crowd had scattered. But later that day:

GLASGOW: I see one of the individuals walking down the street. And for me, I was still in, you know, I could fight. So I got out of the car and I wanted to fight and I was shot.

CHAKRABARTI: He was shot 11 times. Shot in the leg and arms. In his back, in his head. Tyrique spent six days in the hospital. And yes, having scars from 11 bullet holes in his body humbled him.

GLASGOW: But there's also a badge of honor when you're in the streets and get shot and to come back, so to say.

CHAKRABARTI: Tyrique says growing up, it was impossible to hear anything beyond the siren song of that violent street culture. The only thing that cut through it for him was prison. In 2007, he was convicted of manufacturing and dealing drugs. Tyrique was sentenced to five years.

GLASGOW: When I was in jail, it really woke me up. Because when you're out and you're out in the street ... you think that everything is reality. ... You think that you're doing everything right. You think you're doing stuff to benefit the welfare of your family. The welfare of yourself. When in reality, it's a nightmare. When I went to jail, it was like God gave me a reset. Like ... take this as a time out. You're getting shot. You're being arrested six, seven times. It's violence going on. You're losing family members left and right. I'm going to sit you down, because I understand. I have a bigger purpose.

CHAKRABARTI: Tyrique was released from prison in 2012. That same year, he founded the Young Chances Foundation to help at-risk youth in South Philadelphia. Around that same time, Philly's homicide rate actually began trending down. From 2013 to roughly 2017, the city recorded its lowest homicide rates in decades. But then the numbers began to rise. Last year, Philadelphia recorded its highest homicide rate ever, 562 murders. Tyrique Glasgow says fear is spreading across the entire community.

GLASGOW: Our three main people is our children, our seniors and our community at whole. If a child can't walk to school without being murdered, it's a problem. ... It's a concern when our seniors can't go to the supermarket to shop in peace, and to have a good day without being assaulted, robbed or even shot. These are the things that challenge us every day in our community. ... I have never met a person who said, I want to live like this. I want to live in violence.

No, they want their kids to go to good schools. They want to have a good job. They want to want to have a home that they could come to that's taken care of. That's not around gun violence, or hearing gunshots or three-year-old's being murdered. Or kids walking to school being shot. Those are not the stories that you hear. The story is, I just want to get my kids out of here. I just want these young boys to stop it. I don't know what's gotten into these young girls. These are the concerns that you hear every day.

CHAKRABARTI: This is On Point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarti. And that was Tyrique Glasgow, founder of the Young Chances Foundation. Now, last year, as homicides soared, Philadelphia's District Attorney, Michael Krasner told reporters, quote, We don't have a crisis of lawlessness. We don't have a crisis of crime. We don't have a crisis of violence. End quote.

Well, that drew a scathing response from Philly's former mayor, Democrat Michael Nutter. He said, quote, I have to wonder what kind of messed up world of white wokeness Krasner is living in, while he advances his own national profile as a progressive district attorney.

That's what Nutter wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer. And he went on saying, If he actually cared about Philadelphia's Black and brown communities, he'd understand that the homicide crisis is what is plaguing us the most. End quote.

In fact, Black Philadelphians are the majority of homicide victims in Philadelphia. Of the 562 people killed there last year, 80% were Black. 70% of all Philly's homicide victims over a 30 year period were Black, though they make up slightly more than 40% of the city's population. Philadelphia is on track to have a similarly deadly year this year. That's led some elected leaders to resurrect a highly controversial idea. Earlier this month, City Council President Darrell Clarke suggested bringing back a version of the policing tactic known as stop-and-frisk.

DARRELL CLARKE [Tape]: There are a lot of citizens in the streets of the city of Philadelphia to talk about, when are we going to look at stop-and-frisk in a constitutionally enacted way?

CHAKRABARTI: A constitutionally enacted stop-and-frisk. That's what we're going to look at today. What exactly does that mean? What would it look like in practice? Can a constitutional stop and frisk even exist? Critics say no. They say any version of the tactic is a fundamental violation of civil rights. Well, let's start with Sammy Caiola. She's the gun violence prevention reporter at WHYY in Philadelphia. Sammy, welcome to On Point.

SAMMY CAIOLA: Hi. Thanks so much for having me.

CHAKRABARTI: So first of all, tell me, what are lifelong Philadelphians whom you've spoken with telling you about the amount of gun violence, the number of homicides the city experienced last year?

CAIOLA: I've done a lot of listening in communities that are highly impacted by gun violence. And I want to be clear. These are neighborhoods sort of scattered across the city that have been disinvested in. They've seen real declines in just the state of the environment where they live. And it's corresponded with the rise in shootings. And they say it's been a drastic change over the last decade. They used to feel safe. They used to go out. They used to gather. Their children used to, you know, run free around the neighborhood.

And now there is a much more felt state of fear. And that makes sense. Looking at the numbers, you know, there's been an almost doubling of homicides since, you know, the 2017 period. You know, last year was a record year. And we're seeing, you know, more than a homicide a day. Something like 1.5 homicides a day in Philadelphia. So it's just part of life for some people. There is really no sense of safety for them. And I think that's the context for these conversations about the role of policing, and the role of local government. And how do you help people feel able to navigate their own neighborhoods at this point?

CHAKRABARTI: Yeah, so it sounds like it's very much having an impact across the city in just people being able to live their daily lives. I'm looking here at a map from the Office of the Comptroller in Philadelphia that's got a city map that's tracking all shootings, not just homicides, but all shootings. And they are in various neighborhoods across the city. But it also seems as if the violence is particularly concentrated in certain neighborhoods. ... What neighborhoods are they? Are they predominantly Black neighborhoods?

CAIOLA: Yes, these are predominantly Black neighborhoods with lower median incomes than the rest of the city. And, you know, that's where we see the concentration of shootings. But I think as time goes on, we're seeing this problem bleed out. We see shootings in outskirt neighborhoods. We see shootings in suburbs. You know, and it's to the point where it's happening at large public events.

And it's just kind of a ripple. You know, it's the trauma and the fear and the stress of this that is affecting really anybody who lives here. And, you know, for every person that is shot, they've got loved ones, they've got friends, they've got neighbors. You know, every bullet kind of creates this circle of secondary victims. And it's, you know, in many of the neighborhoods you're mentioning, you won't find somebody who has not been touched by gun violence.

Wow. We've got about 30 seconds before our first break. Sammy, can you just quickly tell me, do people in Philadelphia, particularly in the most vulnerable neighborhoods, do they feel like city leadership right now is doing enough?

CAIOLA: Largely, I would say no. I've heard people tell me they feel like the city has put their hands up, that they feel their neighborhoods have been abandoned. And that's everything from, you know, garbage not being picked up, to abandoned vehicles on the streets, to police not having great community relations there. They'd like to see more community policing, police walking the streets, meeting the neighbors. They want to feel that the city cares about them, and is treating this urgently.

CHAKRABARTI: This is On Point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarti. And today, we're talking about why a conversation has begun among some city leaders in Philadelphia to bring back some form of the police tactic known as stop-and-frisk. Specifically, they're talking about a constitutionally enacted stop-and-frisk. Well, what is that? What would it look like in practice? Can such a thing even exist? I'm joined today by Sammy Caiola. She's the gun violence prevention reporter at WHYY in Philadelphia. And Sammy, so it seems as if, from my understanding, Philly has spent, you know, quite a bit of money, several million dollars in gun violence prevention programs.

Given what you said about how the current spate of homicides is is having an impact in various neighborhoods, is it safe to say that those residents don't believe that the money has made much of a difference?

CAIOLA: I think the residents are waiting to see whether the money makes a difference. This is such a deeply rooted problem that it's not going to be fixed overnight. And I think we're going to be tracking for the next several years whether these financial investments are being used effectively, whether they're being used for solutions that are actually informed by the community.

You know, something that we're seeing is a lot of funding being given directly to nonprofits so that they can do this work where they live as trusted messengers there, which, you know, hopefully will make a difference in the long run. But I think right now there are still some very urgent problems in the neighborhoods that people feel like aren't being addressed immediately.

CHAKRABARTI: Well, yeah, I mean, extremely urgent. 562 people being gunned down, just murdered, last year. And it seems as if the city's on track to at least match potentially that number this year. Now, the reason why I asked about the money that has been spent is that's just a means of giving at least a little bit of context that of course, there are lots of efforts going on in Philadelphia, and there have been for years to address the epidemic problem of gun violence.

So it's not as if nothing has been done, which is why this sort of renewed question and conversation over stop and frisk popping up in the city council really drew a lot of attention. Can you just give us the quick story on how and why that happened?

CAIOLA: So I want to acknowledge that I actually have not directly reported on the stop-and-frisk conversation in the city. So I don't know that I can speak right to that, but I will agree with you that there has been so much that's been tried. There are so many projects happening in the nonprofit level, on the academic level and the government level. And there's this feeling ... like nothing is working, that we're all just trying to put together this puzzle that will never finish.

And, you know, it seems to me that the stop-and-frisk conversation is coming out of just this place of like, you know, we need to do something more drastic. We need to take, you know, more emergency type steps. And, you know, we've had some activists call for the National Guard to come to Philadelphia to confront the crisis. So, you know, I think everybody's in this really tense space of, you know, wanting action, but also not wanting to live in a police state. And, you know, you're seeing some people who just don't, you know, don't want the government to get more involved.

They just want to handle it themselves. We can police ourselves. We need to take back the village. We need to rebuild our communities. And then there are others that say we need more investment, we need more action. And so, you know, it's a lot of voices at the table. And it's a very tall order, I think, for those in power in Philadelphia to listen to those voices and try to come up with something that will make a tangible impact on these numbers.

Well. Sammy Caiola, gun violence reporter for WHYY in Philadelphia. Thank you so much for being with us today, Sammy.

CAIOLA: Thanks for having me.

CHAKRABARTI: So as we said, we're going to focus on this question of a constitutionally enacted stop-and-frisk, as has been discussed in Philadelphia, at least the idea of it. And we'll get back to Philadelphia's own particular city's history with stop-and-frisk a little later in the show. But let's actually see what lessons can be learned from New York. And joining us now from New York is Shira Scheindlin.

She's a former judge who served on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. And in 2013, Judge Scheindlin ruled on the famous case of Floyd vs. the city of New York. And that was the case where the New York City Police Department stop-and-frisk tactics were found to be unconstitutional, or violated the rights of tens of thousands of New Yorkers who were stopped by New York police, the majority of whom were people of color. So, Judge Scheindlin, welcome to On Point.

SHIRA SCHEINDLIN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

CHAKRABARTI: So we're going to explore what does a constitutional stop-and-frisk actually mean or could it potentially mean? But give us the backdrop to the Floyd case that you ruled on. Just remind us what was going on in New York that brought the case to your court.

SCHEINDLIN: What was going on in New York is that the number of stops were rising and rising and rising. And by 2011, 686,000 stops were made in one year. And the problem was that a lot of those, most of those, were of people of color. So of the 4.4 million stops that occurred between 2004 and 2012, 52% of those stopped were Black, 31% were Hispanic, only 10% were white. And that did not reflect the population figures, which were different than that. The population was only 23% Black.

So the point is, Blacks were being stopped almost twice as much as whites. Disproportionate. Clearly disproportionate. So a class action lawsuit was brought to say that the stop-and-frisk as practice violated both the Fourth Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And that's what I found. There was a trial, a long trial, and I found that as practiced, it did violate both the fourth and 14th Amendment.

CHAKRABARTI: Now, I can't remember. So please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've frequently heard the argument made that in certain cities where the overwhelming number of people who were stopped by police, and we're talking about pedestrian and vehicle stops here, the reason why they are predominantly people of color is that the stops were happening in neighborhoods that were suffering from a higher crime rate, which were often neighborhoods where the majority of the residents were people of color. So it may be disproportionate regarding the demographic makeup of a city like New York overall. But was it disproportionate given where the crime was happening? Did that come up in the Floyd case?

SCHEINDLIN: It did. It did. The argument was that the stop population should reflect the criminal suspect population. That's what the city argued. But that's wrong. Because the stop population are not criminals. They're innocent, because it turned out that 88% of these stops produce absolutely nothing, no further law enforcement action. And as far as obtaining a weapon or any contraband, only 1.5% of the stops produced anything.

So they were mostly dry stops of innocent people. So the question was, was it an effective technique in preventing crime? That's what you have to ask yourself. And it turns out it was not effective. Because when my opinion came out, and the practice of unconstitutional stops ended, and the stops went down from 686,000 to 36,000. Crime did not rise. That was the dramatic statistic. Ending the practice didn't cause a rise in crime. So we have to ask ourselves, using it that way, so broadly, was it effective? But I hope you'll get to ask me, Can it be used constitutionally? And might that be effective?

CHAKRABARTI: Yes, I will definitely ask you that. But again, I just want to give people sort of context so that helps us understand better your answer to that question when I get around to asking it. Because, I mean, my understanding is, is that police were required, even before your ruling, to provide some kind of justification for the stop. So that was their sort of work around about whether it was a constitutional stop or not. What were the justifications they offered?

SCHEINDLIN: Right. So they had a check off form, instead of having to write a narrative where they really would describe what was suspicious. They just had to check a form. And what we we found in the trial is that the most common check off combination was furtive movement and high crime area. And those two were checked off on form, after form after form. But they don't tell you anything. Because when you ask the police officers at the trial, What is a furtive movement? You really got a huge number of funny answers. Walking funny, looking over your shoulder, one guy said stuttering.

And it was really something. Coming in and out of a building, quickly sitting on a park bench. I mean, furtive movement became almost anything the police wanted it to be. And of course, high crime area. You already said, that's targeting certain neighborhoods, where indeed the statistics are high. But putting those two together did not satisfy the constitutional standard. My point is, the community lost all trust in the police because of this vast number of stops, and they were stopping mostly very young Black males.

So we're talking about people 16 to 22, and they couldn't even go to the grocery store without being stopped. Some of the witnesses testified they were stopped six times, eight times, over and over again. And, you know, you might not think it's so terrible to be stopped, but it's intrusive. It's public. Sometimes the stop was followed by a frisk. It's really a very unpleasant and intrusive experience. And it caused great friction between the community and the police.

CHAKRABARTI: Now, the practice of stop-and-frisk, which I'm putting in quotes, cause I'm not sure what else to call it, as a policing practice. To be clear, it's a judicially sanctioned practice, right?

SCHEINDLIN: There's a Supreme Court case, Terry vs. Ohio, more than 50 years ago. And in Terry vs. Ohio, the court said you can make a stop and you can do a frisk. But in order to make a stop, a police officer must have, and I'm using a quote now, individualized, reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to do so. And there have to be objective facts that support the conclusion, not a mere hunch or speculation.

So that's the point. What can the police officer really point to objectively that tells him that he's concerned that this person is committing, or is about to commit or just committed a crime? And for a frisk, to frisk a stop person, the police have to have reason to suspect that the person is armed and dangerous. And we found that most of the frisks were bad. They had no basis to believe they were armed and dangerous, other than they were young Black males.

CHAKRABARTI: So then let's press ahead with this question of what would a constitutional stop and frisk then potentially look like in practice? So, first of all, for the stop part, I mean, you already talked a little bit about it. But tell me more. How would it satisfy the constitutional bar that you just said was set?

SCHEINDLIN: Well, so you'd have to make up some hypotheticals as we discuss this. I already said you have to have individualized, reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, is committing one or about to. What might that be? You might have a witness who said, Gee, I saw a man in a black leather jacket. He's six foot tall, he's wearing red sneakers. And he just came out of the store with all these, you know, televisions. Okay. If you saw a man that fit that, that's certainly individualized, reasonable suspicion. Or if the police themselves saw somebody rushing out of, who knows what, a supermarket, or jewelry store, running.

And maybe even having some kind of weapon in their hand. That's certainly individualized, reasonable suspicion. So you'd have to discuss the scenarios that would amount to a reasonable suspicion that there's criminal activity afoot, is the word that was used in Terry. So you can do this constitutionally, but if you did, it wouldn't end up with 700,000 stops in one year. It would be the right stops, where you had a reason to believe it. Maybe a tip, maybe a witness. Maybe the police saw the activity themselves.

Those are examples I can think of. But in New York, where stop-and-frisk has now been reformed and is still used, the police officer now has to explain on a form, in a narrative, why did you stop this person? And you have to write out a reason. You can't just check off furtive movement. You have to explain.

CHAKRABARTI: Okay. You have to explain. But then that's still after after the fact. And so it sounds like there's officer discretion still involved, of course.

SCHEINDLIN: Absolutely. It's always going to be a judgment call. And I have to say that I believe that police can do stop-and-frisk in a constitutional way, if they're trained correctly, if they're supervised, monitored and disciplined. ... If they do it right, it could be effective. Absolutely. If you know something, see something, have a basis to make that stop, you should make that stop. You shouldn't let that person walk away. That person could be armed and dangerous. So I think that stop-and-frisk should be used, but it has to be used well. And I think the police are perfectly capable of using it well.

CHAKRABARTI: Yeah. So you talked about what could initiate a stop in a constitutional way, but then there's the frisk part. Should there be even a higher bar there?

SCHEINDLIN: Oh, there is a higher bar. The police have to have reason to believe that the person is armed and dangerous. And that's important. Because the police officer is entitled to worry about his or her own safety. So if they have a reason to believe that this person is armed, they should be allowed to frisk them and get whatever might be there, a knife, a gun, who knows? So one of the things on the check off form had been suspicious bulge. Well, the problem with suspicious bulges is that it often turned out to be a cell phone.

And of course, somebody reached reached in their pocket. They were reaching for their cell phone. But it depends. Maybe the outline of the gun is clear. Maybe an outline of a knife is clear. Maybe a pat down is the right thing to do, because the police officer has to worry about his or her own safety. And of the people around. New York is a busy and crowded city with lots of pedestrians, as is Philadelphia. So we have to worry about who's in the area, as well as the police officer.

CHAKRABARTI: Judge Scheindlin, from what I'm hearing, you describe it, what a constitutional a stop and frisk might look like. It sounds to my ear about what sort of normal police policing should already be. A high degree of evidence required for a reasonable stop. Go ahead.

SCHEINDLIN: Well, the thing is, on an arrest situation, you have to have probable cause to make an arrest. So it's something less than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard. I don't want you to think that, gee, you know, he has to have seen the guy walk in the bank and rob the bank. That's too high. That would be probable cause. But reasonable suspicion is less than that. And it is a judgment call. So it's all about training police officers to do the right thing. And not to target people based solely on their race. And that's what we were seeing in New York in the bad days.

CHAKRABARTI: This is On Point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarti. And today we're talking about the conversation going on among some city leaders in Philadelphia about whether or not the city should enact a form of a constitutional stop-and-frisk policing tactic that Philly has had a long history with. But this word constitutional stop-and-frisk is what has really caught our attention.

And, of course, Philadelphia is experiencing a massive surge in its crime and particularly its homicide rate. 562 people murdered in Philadelphia just last year. I'm joined today by Judge Shira Scheindlin. She is a retired judge who used to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. And she, in 2013, ruled on the Floyd vs. the city of New York case, where she ruled that that city's NYPD stop-and-frisk tactics violated the constitutional rights of New Yorkers.

And we've been talking with her about what a constitutional stop-and-frisk might look like. So let's again return to the conversation happening in Philadelphia. On July 5th, when City Council President Darrell Clarke first talked about enacting some kind of constitutional stop-and-frisk, he also addressed why he was calling for that discussion.

DARRELL CLARKE [Tape]: When I talk to people out in the streets of the city of Philadelphia, they want to know what did Ramsey and what did Nutter do when they had those numbers down below 300? And a simple reality is that they used stop-and-frisk. They went too far, people abused it, and the courts had to step in and say, We're shutting this down. But the question is, do you do it in a way for cause, right? Because it has to be for cause, because this is America.

You can't just simply decide you want to stop somebody. Look, I'm a 6-foot-3 Black guy, right? I take this suit off and I'm walking downCecil B. Moore Avenue, I'm likely to be stopped. I'm likely to have a cop look at me two, three times. Right. That's reality, right?

But that's a conversation we're going to have to have. Because you can't have an environment where everybody is carrying a gun, an illegal gun. So let's have the conversation. Let's have real people involved in a conversation and let's figure out what we're going to do.

CHAKRABARTI: Well, joining us now from Philadelphia is Councilman Isaiah Thomas. He is an at-large member of the Philadelphia City Council. Councilman Thomas, welcome to On Point.

ISAIAH THOMAS: Thank you, and thank you for having me. I appreciate being a part of this conversation.

CHAKRABARTI: So you've also been doing a lot of work for years on violence prevention and equitable policing in Philadelphia. So what was your first response when you heard what Council President Clarke had said?

THOMAS: I know the council president, and I understand his passion as it relates to the gun violence problem, the gun violence crisis that we're facing in the city of Philadelphia. And I understand where he's coming from, as it relates to the importance of having a conversation about what police are doing currently, what's taking place and what methods we're using to address crime. But more importantly, what direction we go in in the future.

Because clearly what we're doing right now and what we have been doing as of recently is not working. Because we're not putting a dent in the crime, and we're seeing it move actually in the opposite direction. So I 100% respect the council president's his passion. I understand that this is an emotional time. We're all frustrated. And I think it's important that police and other parties have conversations about what we're doing, what we're not doing, and what can we do to address this gun violence crisis.

CHAKRABARTI: Well, you've been listening along throughout the hour thus far. So you heard what Judge Scheindlin was describing as a form of stop-and-frisk that might clear constitutional bars. Do you think what you heard would be plausible for Philadelphia?

THOMAS: Well, what I heard from the judge, I think is important. And it speaks to the legality of what we can and cannot do. Every state has different laws and different guidelines on what can be done, and what cannot be done. So for us in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, over the last three years or so, we've had a number of state Supreme Court rulings that has limited what can be done by law enforcement as it relates to searches, stops, as well as other means of trying to address this conversation around stop-and-frisk.

So for us, police officers are very limited in what they can do. And it would be very difficult for police officers in the city of Philadelphia to operate what we're calling constitutional stop-and-frisk based on what stop-and-frisk has been traditionally. Now, when a judge talks about some of the ideas around reasonable suspicion, you know that to us as policing. That's part of the job and that's part of what needs to be done.

When I think about stop-and-frisk, when some of my contemporaries think about stop-and-frisk, we think about the idea of giving law enforcement the power to be able to look at you. And say, you look guilty, you look suspicious without any reasonable suspicion, but just going off of their own instincts. And that being enough to pull somebody over to stop a pedestrian and to search that person. And we do not believe that that is the best method to address the crime that we're seeing in the city of Philadelphia.

CHAKRABARTI: Now, Judge Scheindlin, I'm going to come back to you in just a moment. But let me ask you first, Councilman Thomas, have you been stopped and frisked by Philly police in your lifetime?

THOMAS: In my lifetime, absolutely. I thought you were going to say this year, but in my lifetime, absolutely. I've been stopped. I've been stopped more times than I can count. When folks talk about, you know, what have we done in the past? You know, I was one of those folks who grew up as a teenager, and somebody in my young twenties when stop-and-frisk was the most prevalent.

So I know what that type of policing and that police style does. I know what it did to my perception of law enforcement, as well as a lot of my contemporaries. And when you look at some of the issues that we have around hiring police officers right now in the city of Philadelphia, clearly we're going through the great resignation, not just in Philadelphia, but all across the country as we come out of this COVID situation.

It's called a crisis. But at the end of the day, I think that some of the issues that we're facing is because of the tainted relationships that a lot of folks in my generation have as it relates to law enforcement, because of so many negative interactions growing up.

CHAKRABARTI: Now, just to give folks a little bit more background on the history that Philadelphia has with stop-and-frisk, I'll focus for a moment on the years that former Philly Mayor Michael Nutter was in office. There was a huge number of stops. I think by the time near when Nutter left office, there was something like 800,000 in one year.

That, along with other policing, changes in violence prevention, you did see a dip in the homicide rate, but that massive number of stops did end up in court. And actually, even before that, in 2010, the city was sued by the Pennsylvania ACLU. And coming out of that was something called the Bailey Agreement, which stipulated that Philly police had to have, quote, reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct in order to make a stop, and that frisks should be undertaken, quote, only when there is reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed and dangerous. Now, Judge Scheindlin, that sounds exactly like what you were describing about 10 minutes ago to me.

SCHEINDLIN: It does, indeed. It's exactly the words that I used, and also the words the councilman just used about the bad relationship between the community and the police that grew out of these enormous numbers of stops. That's why it had to end. I'm for a lot of police presence. That's one thing Philadelphia can do. The police force should actually be increased, not decreased. There should be presence, but the presence should mean a good relationship with the community, where they can work together to reduce crime, where people will tell the police officer, Gee, this is what's been going on.

I think this guy is selling drugs. I think, you know, a tip. If the community worked with the police, things would get better. So I think there's a way to do effective policing and mass and broad stop-and-frisk is not the way to do effective policing, but targeted stop-and-frisk is still a good idea. It's good policing.

CHAKRABARTI: Targeted. And Councilman Thomas, I'll turn this one to you. It sounds to me that based on what's in place from that 2010 Bailey agreement, about the very narrow conditions under which Philly police can do a stop. Plus, you know, as you said, from a year or two ago, the prohibition against those so-called quality of life stops, where people were getting stopped and frisked for just panhandling on a street corner. All these things are already in place. So I'm not sure what could be expanded, or how might the targeting change to work in Philadelphia. Do you see what I'm saying?

THOMAS: I do. And that's why I'm concerned as well, too. When you think about the 2019 Supreme Court ruling for the Commonwealth vs. Hicks, Commonwealth vs. Perfetto. ... Commonwealth vs. Alexander in 2020. These are all cases that puts us in a position as it relates to Supreme Court ruling for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that limits what it is that police officers can and cannot do, as it relates to vehicle and pedestrian stops.

So at the end of the day, when there is some type of a probable cause, when there is some type of reasonable suspicion, in my mind, I don't call it stop-and-frisk. I call that police officers being police officers, similar to what the judge said. When we're talking about a police presence in neighborhoods, we are all for community policing in the city of Philadelphia.

We want to see patrol officers walking neighborhoods and talking to constituents, developing relationships, understanding the difference between model citizens in a particular community and the small percentage of people who don't necessarily move and operate as model citizens. So whenever I hear the idea of constitutional stop-and-frisk, it's not that I'm not open to the conversation. I think that as an elected official that represents the entire city, I'm obligated to come to the table and look to collaborate.

Even if the idea introduced initially is not something that I necessarily agree with. It's my responsibility as an elected official to still come to the table. I'm just curious, from a legal perspective, you know, what are we calling a constitutional stop-and-frisk in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically in the city of Philadelphia, that does not put us in a position where we're not adhering to Supreme Court rulings specifically related to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

SCHEINDLIN: This constitutional standard that you described in Pennsylvania is the same as what the U.S. Supreme Court said. But the current U.S. Supreme Court handed down a terrible decision this term in Brooklyn, the case that said there can be no restriction on carrying guns, you know, concealed or not concealed, it's a terrible thing. So I think we're going to see even more guns on our streets all over the country.

And I have to express my outrage at that decision. It's bad for everybody and we can't close our eyes to that. So while you cite good decisions that limit police conduct in an important way, so that people of color are not discriminated against and stopped wrongly as you were when you were a kid. That's wrong. And that can't come back. It can't come back.

But good policing, as you said, based on reasonable suspicion, is a good thing. And with the flood of guns that we're going to see, we're in trouble in this country. As we know, we don't go a day without reading about a mass shooting.

THOMAS: I agree with the judge. I think the judge is absolutely on point with that.

CHAKRABARTI: We've got about 5 minutes left, and I want to talk a little bit more about what could be done right now for the people in, you know, the neighborhoods that you grew up in and represent, Councilman Thomas. Because as you heard a little earlier, the description that it's so bad in certain places that it's really touching every aspect of of life in these Philly neighborhoods. So I was looking at a quote from Don Jackson, who runs an intervention group in Philly called Urban Navigation. And here's what he said.

He wants the Philadelphia mayor to call a state of emergency. He wants them to reinstate random stops to look for guns. Guns specifically, not random stops for other things, for outstanding warrants, etc. And he said this probably wouldn't hold up in court. He acknowledges that. But Don Jackson said he's convinced that if they stop between 1,000 and 1,500 people, I guarantee you there will be less firearms on the streets. That's what he was quoted as saying in a report from WHYY.

And the reason why I point that out is because it does feel like there is an emergency going on right now in these neighborhoods. And it is understandable that people want some equally urgent action and that, you know, long-term gun violence prevention programs, they can't wait for that, while their loved ones are being gunned down.

THOMAS: I agree with the sense of urgency. I was one of the council members who co-sponsored legislation that called on the mayor to call for a state of emergency as it relates to gun violence. But I want to be very clear, there are some long term systemic problems that we have in the city of Philadelphia, like poverty, like failing schools. That puts us in a position where we have a cycle in a system that continues to oppress the same people in the same neighborhoods.

But in the short-term, I do want to be clear. Even when we had 300 homicides a year, that's way too much. So I would hate to look at what we did when we had 300 homicides a year and try to replicate that as if that number is acceptable. In my mind, that number is not acceptable at all either. I grew up in the city of Philadelphia. I've lived here my entire life, and we've almost always had a crime problem.

Read more here:
Amid rising violence, a look inside the possible return of stop-and-frisk in Philadelphia - WBUR News

In the waning hours of the 2022 summer legislative session, two of North Carolinas most conservative House members took to the floor to speak out against government overreach.

We should not have a government tracking people, said Rep. Keith Kidwell, the House deputy majority whip.

The Beaufort County Republican was not addressing privacy concerns that have been raised since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, ending the constitutional right to an abortion.

Rather Kidwell was angry about a provision tucked inside Senate Bill 201, legislation that would make a number of changes to North Carolinas motor vehicle and transportation laws.

The objectionable section would allow the state Department of Transportation to enter into agreements with the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation for the placement and use of automatic license plate reader systems within land or right-of-way owned by the DOT as part of a pilot program.

The cameras provide real-time data for law enforcement and could be useful in the case of a stolen vehicle or an Amber alert.

But Rep. Kidwell was unwavering.

Now, Ive had someone write to me and say we do not have an expectation of privacy once were outside of our home. Well, that may be true, but I do think we have an expectation of privacy that our government should not track us every place we go.

Then I hear, You dont trust your government? No. I dont to be quite honest with you, Kidwell answered. Thats one of the main reasons Im here. I dont trust my government.

Kidwell then directed the House to read the Constitution.

Pull up that Fourth Amendment and read it and see if you dont agree this is a blatant violation of that right the right to privacy.

Tracking political opponents, dissidents

Rep. Larry Pittman (R- Cabarrus Co.) joined in Kidwells opposition, calling the pilot program reprehensible.

Rep. Pittman

We hope and pray we never have government leaders in this state who want to keep tabs on political opponents, but this system would allow that, Pittman warned. I am not gonna sit still for that as long as I am here.

Pittman said while cell phones can provide tracking data and ones location, that handheld technology could easily be left at home, whereas the license plate could not legally be removed from ones car.

If there becomes a totalitarian government in this nation, this state, you should not be putting in a system by which they can track political opponents wherever they go.

I know the benefits of it. Oh, we can catch kidnappers, we catch bank robbers. You can also catch dissidents, Pittman warned his colleagues.

Fifteen Republicans joined with Pittman and Kidwell in rejecting Thursdays version of the bill. A rare 55-55 vote sent SB 201 off the floor and back to a group of conferees.

This is America in 2022?

In the upper chamber, state Senator Natasha Marcus was also thinking about privacy last week in the aftermath of the Supreme Courts opinion in Dobbs.

It pains me to think my daughters or any bodys daughters might face a problem pregnancy, an unwanted pregnancy, a not viable pregnancy and not be able to get the healthcare they need in America, said Marcus in an interview with Policy Watch.

This is America in 2022? That we are going to have forced birth?

The Mecklenburg County Democrat said it is stunning to think we are now in a place where we are not going to trust women to make the very personal choice that is best for them and their families in consultation with their doctors.

Instead, we are going to have politicians almost literally in the exam room.

She said this is a terrifying prospect for women.

For now, abortion is still legal in North Carolina. We cannot slide backwards or allow the government to block people from making our own decisions about such deeply personal matters, Sen. Marcus said.

Marcus sponsored a bill this session that would codify Roe and Casey protections.

Under that proposed legislation, the state would be prohibited from imposing any undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability.

Marcus and other progressives believe the measure is essential as Republican-controlled states quickly begin to ban or severely restrict abortion access.

Another unsettled issue being debated is whether women might be punished for traveling out of state to get an abortion.

Senate Bill 888 was sent to the Rules committee in late May. It was never given another hearing.

A different ending in the House

But what of Senate Bill 201, the transportation bill that raised concerns because the pilot license plate readers might track motorists?

Reps. Kidwell and Pittman won their push for privacy.

The 13-page bill became a 12-page bill in a matter of hours; the section was removed entirely.

The House passed the conference committee substitute for SB 201 unanimously last Friday.

Follow this link:
"Privacy" concerns, "government overreach" take center stage in the final days of NC's legislative session | The Pulse - The...

It sounds like the start of a bad knock-knock joke: A bed and breakfast owner and a federal agent run into each other at an inn on the northern border. But what happened next is far from humorous.

Robert Boule, the owner of Smugglers Inn on the Canadian-US border in Washington, sued a US Border Patrol agent for violating his Fourth Amendment right by entering his home and using excessive force against him. Boule alleged the border agent pushed him to the ground during a dispute and then retaliated by reporting him to the IRS after he complained to the agents supervisors.

The US Supreme Court ruled against Boule on June 8, holding that his case did not fall under the 1971 precedent Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents. In its ruling, SCOTUS effectively concluded that federal courts no longer have the right to decide on border police liability, but instead should defer to Congress.

Without congressional action, federal agents may no longer be liable for their actions, no matter how violent. Why? The doctrine of qualified immunity for law enforcement.

As a former public defender and now executive director and co-founder of Partners for Justice, a nonprofit that works to help low-income Americans navigate the legal system by bolstering public defense resources, I have seen first hand the consequences of law enforcement behaving as if they are the law. A child assaulted by a school cop while the schools video surveillance mysteriously cut out. A young man having his face driven by a police officer into the street for carrying a screwdriver.

The police violence that we hear about in the news is occasionalthe police violence that communities of color endure every day is not. It is constant, lethal, and uniquely American.

In no other field are professionals shielded from the worst consequences of their occupational mishaps. If a doctor botches a procedure, they are liable for malpractice. If I, as a lawyer, fail to investigate my clients claims, I could lose my license and be subject to liability. But if police (and now federal agents) use excessive force, they are largely shielded from any public recourse.

Imagine the shock and outrage that would erupt if nurses killed 1,055 civilians in one yearthe number of civilians killed by law enforcement in the U.S. in 2020. Yetdespite the crescendo of voices arguing against qualified immunity after George Floyds murder in 2020our courts persist in creating a consequence-free zone for some of our nations most lethal professionals.

Law enforcement is no longer an emergency response mechanism, but more of an omnipresent, all-purpose force, summoned for everything from excessive noise to mental health crises to school misbehavior. This puts the public at much greater risk from the policewho are everywhere, doing everything, including things they are not trained (social work, mental health, etc.)

Unfortunately when brute force and imprisoning people in desolate locked spaces are the main tools for carrying out cops jobs, the outcome is (predictably) more harm.

The smartest pro-safety solution would be for legislatures to invest in communities needs that foster safety, such as housing, access to medical care or building out public defense as a broader resource to aid people whose lives are dismantled by our criminal system. But that doesnt mean we cant still push for lawmakers to take the most modest step in the right direction: ending qualified immunity.

The Boule decision isnt ideologically uniqueits just a depressing reminder of how expansive law enforcement immunity really is (plus a spotlight on the horror that is our Constitution-free border zone). The Supreme Court has continually kicked rulings on qualified immunity to the legislature, building precedents for protecting law enforcement at the expense of the American people (with a pair of such rulings just last year in City of Tahlequah v. Bond and Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna.)

In a world where Democrats control the Senate only on paper and fact-free crime hysteria is on the rise, its easy to feel SCOTUSs abandonment of the individual is the end of the road. But in fact, there may still be hope.

While we wait for Congress to break the Washington deadlock, there are other system actors who can hold police accountable in court and play important rolesprosecutors and public defenders.

Prosecutors can use do-not-call lists, which are lists of police officers to no longer call to testify in court because those officers arent credible witnesses. This disengages bad cops from courthouse power.

Meanwhile, public defenders can also help. They serve around 80% of accused people and stand as a last bulwark between ordinary people and law enforcement overreach. Public defenders also are often the only legal-system actors present and able to help at moments of peak crisis.

And some local leaders across the country are making strides, with tangible impacts. In Delaware County, Pa., for example, dynamic new leaders in the public defenders office identified the need for change, and by reimagining the role of their office, they have made it a community haven for holistic support, rather than just a space for legal counsel.

Unfortunately, public defender offices continue to be chronically underfunded at all levels of government. For example, the latest numbers show that California recently proposed budgeting 82% more resources to prosecutors than public defendersand this was in a progressive stronghold.

Until our elected officials realize that the shamelessness of American policing is a fertile source of common ground, those of us in the courthouse will have to do our best to repair the irreparable harm of American law enforcement.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines

Emily Galvin Almanza is the co-founder and executive director of nonprofit Partners for Justice. Previously, she worked as a public defender in California and New York.

Read the original post:
Congress Needs to Fix Qualified ImmunityHere's Why - Bloomberg Law

During the quarter-century year career on the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer constantly cultivated two judicial virtues now increasingly absent from the federal bench. The first is a careful, empirical cast of mind, constantly alive to the lived experience of litigants, institutions, and the world. The second is a humility about the limits of his own knowledge. These led him as a profound respect for other, more democratic bodies such as Congress, federal agencies. and state legislatures. Under their sway, Breyer vindicated Our Democratic Constitution as finely as anyone else to grace the high court bench.

Unlike the approaches favored by other Justices, Breyers brand of well-tempered empiricism forced him to be candid about what informed his judgment. It avoided simplistic fallaciespeddled hard under the originalist labelto the effect that constitutional law at the high court can avoid normative judgments: The text of the Constitution is too majestically general, and too capacious for it to be otherwise. By bringing to light the laws real justifications, and amplifying the space for democratic choice, his work embodied real judicial restraintand a real commitment to the founding American value of lived democratic choice.

Justice Breyers opinions are characterized by detailed consideration of the many factors that legitimately bite on a legal questions, coupled with close attention to factual detail. His dissent in the New York gun case last week, as well as the careful and modulated dissent from the wrecking-ball abortion decision, show as much. His opinions are often accompanied by voluminous appendices, listing in exhaustive detail the facts behind a specific point.

Sometimes, this exacting attention to the world drove Breyer to progressive conclusions. In a 2015 dissenting opinion, for example, he painted a comprehensive empirical portrait of a capricious, oft-lawless, and racially tainted capital justice system. His relentless and powerful catalog of racialized caprice and malice should lay to rest any thought that the American death penalty can avoid being cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment, let alone even-handed across the color line.

In a more centrist vein, he penned in 2006 a sweeping rebuttal of the Courts decision to invalidate race-conscious efforts by schools to maintain integration. Chief Justice Robertss majority rested on a phrase of illusory simplicity: The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. In contrast, Breyer demonstrated beyond doubt that when historical patterns of racial discrimination carve up the present social world, race-blindness has the effect preserving uneven access to quality education.

Justice Breyers solicitude for the facts has not been mere code for liberal outcomes. Instead, respect for facts also led him often to conservative, even illiberal, opinions. In 2011, for example, he dissented from the Courts invalidation of a California statute banning the distribution of violent video games to young people. Canvassing alternatives to a ban, Breyer flagged serious enforcement gaps left by other technological options. In 2005, he cast the decisive vote upholding a six-foot-tall statute of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. This vote was based on his careful evaluation of the way both religious and secular citizens experienced their government in Texas. And in 2002, Breyer provided the pivotal vote in an important Fourth Amendment case about students rights against suspicionless drug testing. He upheld the practice against constitutional challenge, citing the serious national problem with drugs, and the schools decision to avoid criminal or disciplinary.

Indeed, his most recent majority opinion, issued in a religious liberty case at the beginning of May, ruled for the First Amendment claimants wanting to fly a Christian flag in Boston. By todays standards, this was a conservative outcomeyet Breyer managed to put together a coalition of both liberals and conservatives. Where he aimed to encompass diverse constitutional values, his conservative colleagues only weeks later blew past precedent to elevate the constitutional rights of the religious over those of the secular.

The clarity and rigor of Justice Breyers opinions are absent from many of his more conservative Justices recent work-products. As Professor Ryan Doerfler has recently explained, many Roberts Court opinions are an almost comical exercises in logic-chopping semantics. They are woefully lacking in attention to the actual context in which statutes are made.

Further, Breyers candor is at odds with the originalist label that several Justices proudly display. This label is paraded at a moment when critical areas of constitutional lawsuch as campaign finance, property takings, and racial equalityfloat completely free of any anchor in eighteenth-century understandings. In contrast, Justice Breyereven when you disagree with himtreats his reader as democratic equals who deserve an actual justification, not just high-handed sophistry.

The second key trait of Justice Breyers jurisprudence is respect for the ability of our democratic institutions to make their own judgmentsoften with tools far superior to courtsand to act on those conclusions. A 2007 study hence found him among the least likely judges to invalidate either federal or statute statutes. A study one year before that found him least likely to strike down a federal regulation (Scalia was at the other end of the spectrum).

Other Justices engage in democracy talktake Justice Kavanaughs comments about letting states decide on abortion. But Justice Breyer practices what he preaches. Not for him judicially created rules to the effect that agencies cant decide major questionsrecently invoked to shut down President Bidens vaccine mandate. That sort of judge-made rule can too easily be expanded and contracted, accordion-like, to fit the Justices policy preferences.

Justice Breyers career hence tees up the right questions to ask of the Court in coming weeks and months: Will it be well attuned not just to all the facts of the world (not just the convenient ones), and at the same time honor its limited empirical capacities? Will Justices work toward and support a constitutional democracyor are they a threat to that very enterprise? The Court that comes after Justice Breyers retirement has high standards to meet indeed.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

See the article here:
What the Supreme Court Loses With Justice Breyer's Retirement - TIME

The Supreme Court recently dealt a blow to federal police accountability in Egbert v. Boule. The case, in which the ACLU filed an amicus brief, centers on Robert Boule, who runs a bed-and-breakfast on the U.S.-Canada border. Boule sued Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert for damages for violating his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The court ruled that Boule is not entitled to seek money damages for the harm caused by Egberts excessive force and retaliation.

When Egbert entered the inn without a warrant to investigate a guest staying there, Boule stepped between the guest and the agent and asked the agent to leave. Egbert then threw Boule to the ground, injuring him. After Boule exercised his First Amendment right to file a complaint and administrative claim with Egberts supervisor, the agent retaliated against him by prompting multiple unfounded investigations into Boule.

The court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Boule is not entitled to seek money damages for the harm caused by Egberts excessive force and retaliation. For over 50 years, under the Supreme Courts ruling in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, people have sought money damages against federal agents for violating their constitutional rights. But the court called Boules case a new context for Bivens liability and would not allow his claims. While the ruling further limits peoples ability to hold Border Patrol agents accountable in court, and undercuts an important deterrent to misconduct, it did not sanction the agents unconstitutional actions or grant agents permission to violate peoples rights in the future.

Credit: AP Photo/Greg Bull

Here are four things you need to know about the ruling:

The ruling does not eliminate your rights in the border region

The courts decision in no way changes your constitutional rights when interacting with border agents in the border region. While the facts of the case involve Border Patrols intrusion of the inn without a warrant, the courts decision does not sanction those actions.

Border Patrol, and its parent agency Customs and Border Protection (CBP), are bound by constitutional limitations, which prohibit agents from entering your home without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects against arbitrary searches and seizures of people and their property, in the border region and beyond. Within 25 miles of the border, as permitted by a separate statute not at issue in this case, Border Patrol is permitted to enter private property, such as your yard or ranch land, without a warrant but is explicitly barred, even that close to the border, from entering a dwelling, such as your house, without a warrant.

The court has narrowed the options to seek justice for border agents violation of constitutional protections in the border region.

Border Patrol also remains obligated to respect a broad range of other constitutional rights. For example, a Border Patrol agent cannot lawfully pull you over or otherwise detain you without reasonable suspicion, which means the agent must have specific, articulable facts that make it reasonable to believe you committed or are committing a violation of immigration or other federal law, not just a hunch. A Border Patrol agent also cannot search you or your belongings without your voluntary consent, unless they have probable cause, a higher standard requiring a reasonable belief that an immigration violation or crime has occurred. You always have the right to remain silent and say you wish to speak with an attorney.

In other words, your constitutional rights are still intact, even in the border region, but the courts decision will make it more difficult to hold federal agents accountable when they violate those rights. By further cutting off the ability to seek money damages under Bivens, the court has narrowed the options available to seek justice for border agents frequent violations of constitutional protections in the border region.

The Constitution still applies in 100 mile border zone

Much has been made of the 100 mile border zone, but you have the same constitutional rights within the border zone as you do anywhere else in the country. There are only two narrow circumstances in which the Border Patrol is permitted to act outside of normal Fourth Amendment limitations on searches and seizures.

Outside of these specific circumstances, all other constitutional protections apply within the border zone, and to individuals who interact with Border Patrol agents. The 100 mile border zone is not a Constitution-free zone.

American Civil Liberties Union

Know Your Rights | 100 Mile Border Zone | American Civil Liberties Union

The ProblemThe Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.

CBPs internal administrative accountability process is in urgent need of an overhaul

In denying Boules Bivens claim, the court argued that the Border Patrols non-binding administrative grievance process offered an adequate alternative to money damages for Robert Boule. It does not as clearly evidenced by the retaliation Boule faced after filing a grievance, and Border Patrols decision to keep Egbert on even after finding he acted inappropriately.

We know how frustrating the grievance process is first hand. The ACLU has filed over a dozen administrative complaints since 2020 documenting abuses suffered by hundreds of individuals that went unanswered for months and resulted in few, if any, changes to agency policy. The process, which is not subject to judicial review and has no mechanism for complainants to participate, focuses on disciplining officer misconduct rather than any other individual remedy to complainants.

This decision means that people whove suffered abuse by the Border Patrol abuse in the same way as Boule cannot obtain monetary compensation in court.

If administrative oversight mechanisms are to provide any kind of justice, the Department of Homeland Security, CBPs parent agency, must urgently make several changes. The department should create a uniform process to review and investigate all immigration and border related complaints, including implementing screening procedures for ensuring prompt assignment of a neutral investigator; prompt confirmation of receipt and whether an investigation has been initiated; a requirement that all relevant records (including video and audio files) be turned over to to investigators within 14 calendar days; written resolution of complaints; and appointment of an independent decision maker to impose discipline. The agency then must ensure individuals who they find at fault face meaningful accountability, rather than giving them a pass, as they did with Egbert.

Congress should codify and strengthen the right to sue federal law enforcement for abuse.

This decision has significant consequences for the victims of abuse by federal law enforcement. It means that people who have been subjected to Border Patrol abuse in the same way as Boule cannot obtain monetary compensation in court, and it may make it more difficult for other victims of abuse by federal law enforcement to bring their claims, as well.

While the ruling is a disappointment, the fight is not over. Congress can, and should, pass legislation to enshrine the right of individuals to sue federal law enforcement officers and receive damages from agents who violate their rights. If it did so, victims of Border Patrol abuse would no longer have to contend with the Egbert ruling, and more broadly, the availability of this important remedy for abuse by federal agents would no longer depend on the willingness of increasingly-hostile courts to allow Bivens cases to go forward.

Read this article:
Four Things to Know About the Supreme Court's Ruling in Egbert v. Boule | News & Commentary - ACLU