We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
EGBERT V. BOULE: SACRIFICING CUSTOM AND BORDER PATROL ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
- Authors
MORENO, RAFAEL
- Abstract
The article examines the case of Egbert v. Boule, where the U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend the Bivens remedy to a U.S. citizen's claim against a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent. Critics argue that the Court's decision misapplied existing precedent, weakened constitutional protections for CBP agents, and failed to hold the agency accountable for its history of abuse and racism. The article provides an overview of the case, the legal background of the Bivens cause of action, and the Court's application of Bivens in different contexts. It also discusses concerns about racial profiling and inadequate remedies for addressing complaints against CBP. Overall, the Court's decision in Egbert v. Boule is seen as problematic, as it limits accountability for CBP and raises constitutional concerns.
- Subjects
U.S. Border Patrol; BORDER patrols; SEX discrimination; NATIONAL security; SEX discrimination in employment; INTERNMENT of Japanese Americans, 1942-1945; RACIAL profiling in law enforcement; DUE process of law; CONSTITUTIONAL law
- Publication
University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class, 2023, Vol 23, Issue 2, p280
- ISSN
1554-4796
- Publication type
Article