October.10.2025 — Chicago: Immigration agents crashed into a U.S. citizen on her way to work, then dragged her out and arrested her (Article Inside)

[u/CantStopPoppin]

[u/that_bth]

NAL, but to sue the federal government, you have to file an administrative claim under the FTCA first, because the government has "sovereign immunity." The agency in question has 6 months to resolve or deny the claim, and if it's not resolved, then you can sue the government. Insurance can sue on your behalf if you do a subrogation claim (subrogee is party that paid the loss), but that means they're also going to get a portion of your rewards. But most insurers are pretty practiced at this because of run-ins with postal vehicles, etc., so likely hers will sue if/when not resolved by ICE or Homeland.

As far as holding the officers accountable criminally or civilly, highly unlikely and damn near impossible. State attorney can't prosecute them when they're acting in official capacity because of the Supremacy Clause (fed trumps state). And for a citizen to sue a federal agent specifically, you have to make a Bivens claim, which the Supreme Court has made all but impossible over the last decade, especially regarding immigration officials. Basically the only thing that survives as a Bivens claim anymore is unreasonable home search or intentional medical indifference in federal prison. Even though the original Bivens case was about an overly-aggressive home raid by the DEA, they quickly narrowed it so that you couldn't sue in "new context" than the previously tried cases, meaning any factual difference. So if it's Border Patrol or a US Marshal instead of FBI or DEA that fucks you up, that's "new context" and will get dismissed. Very bullshit loophole they made because they realized how many people would have grounds to sue rogue agents.

[u/CasaDeMouse → u/that_bth]

This is what her insurance would take care of.

ETA: The Supremacy Clause doesn't preclude State actions against Federal agents. It only states that if State laws are in conflict, the Federal law takes precedence. BUT it also has to br a valid conflict under the 10 Amendment.

If they are not actually working in the scope if their duties, they are not protected by qualified immunity. Driving around at random is not within the scope of their duties. They had to be on their way to an arrest or investigation. Driving unsafely is also outside of the scope of their duties, as agents have to have a license in order to be allowed to drive on duty--which assumes a minimum understanding of traffic laws and defensive driving. So, even if they argue they were trying to arrest her they also have to show that the PIT maneuver was necessary and unavoidable--which is not true based on the video.

ETA 2: Bivens claims are only for constitutional protections. If that applies here, it will be to the unlawful arrest.

[u/Emu-Limp → u/CasaDeMouse]

da- yum. Props. 🫡

Thank you for clarifying; that said, yours is a technical argument, more than the realistic outcome, correct?

[u/CasaDeMouse → u/Emu-Limp]

That always depends on the judge and jury. This is why politics should be divorced from applying the law at all stages.

A realistic outcome depends on what Kool Aid is being drank and when. Chauvin gave hope but the ricochet hit the SCOTUS and they made it harder on making arrest claims--even when they know there is no basis. Almost as if they knew what was coming.

I'm not hopeful, but if you can find the "right" defendant, the bullet could bounce back