article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rejects Cause of Action Under Bivens Against Border Patrol Agent

Constitutional Law Reporter

Supreme Court held that the authority of a court to imply a cause of action under Bivens v. While the Court did not overrule Bivens , it did emphasize that recognizing a Bivens cause of action is “a disfavored judicial activity.”. In Egbert v. Boule , 596 U.S. _ (2022), the U.S. Border Patrol agent. Border Patrol agent.

article thumbnail

Australia High Court Delivers Major Blow to Free Speech In Defamation Ruling

JonathanTurley

The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. America Online, Inc., 3d 327, 330-31 (4th Cir.

Tort 34
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Half Baked or The American Dream: Can States Ban Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream?

JonathanTurley

What is interesting is that the Chapter includes a ban on any constitutional, contractual, or regulatory lawsuit for losses under this ban. NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION. (a) ” An actual state boycott could raise serious constitutional questions in interfering with interstate commerce and free speech.

article thumbnail

Federal Court Dismisses “Kung Flu” Lawsuit Against Trump

JonathanTurley

He lost efforts to prevent a $10,000 per day fine for contempt in failing to turn over evidence on his assets in the civil investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James. While Southern District of New York Judge John Koeltl does not mention sanctions, he does categorically dismiss the actions on various grounds.

Court 33
article thumbnail

Former Rep. Hill Files Lawsuit Against Former Husband And Media Over Public Disclosures

JonathanTurley

The Court in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan have long limited tort law where it would undermine the first amendment. at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. Here is the provision : 1708.85. (a)

Tort 43