Posted on 03/25/2007 1:41:02 AM PDT by Dacb
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in a case that raises significant issues about the ability of private citizens to sue government employees.
In the case, Wilkie v. Robbins, a Wyoming rancher charged that officers at the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management retaliated against him after he refused to give the agency access to his land. The rancher, Harvey Frank Robbins, alleged the BLM officers violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and his Fifth Amendment rights by revoking his grazing permits and extorting him to gain access.
Robbins originally filed suit against the six BLM employees in 1998. After a series of failed efforts by the government to have the suit dismissed in the U.S. District Court in Wyoming and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, government officials then appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who represented Robbins, told the high court that private citizens should have a constitutional right to sue government employees for ongoing harassment, as opposed to having to sue the government in general for each action.
But BLM, represented by Greg Garre, deputy solicitor general at the Justice Department, argued that government employees should be immune from such lawsuits because the government, and not the employees themselves, stood to gain from the easement.
"Here, the nature of the responsibilities are enforcing grazing permits [and] enforcing access to public lands, activities that BLM officials have discretion and have had discretion for more than a century to enforce. And we think that falls squarely within the rubric of qualified immunity," Garre said.
The dispute in this case goes back to 1994, when Robbins purchased a guest ranch in Wyoming, not knowing that the BLM, which controls the federal land adjoining the ranch, had granted the previous owner a right of way over federal land in exchange for an easement. Though the previous owner had properly recorded the right of way, the BLM had not yet recorded the easement when Robbins purchased the ranch. When a BLM employee asked Robbins to reinstate the easement without offering any compensation, Robbins declined.
Robbins alleged that a series of retaliatory acts followed. He argued that the employees brought false criminal charges against him, revoked his grazing and recreational use permits and trespassed on his property.
Justice Antonin Scalia said that it is unrealistic for Robbins to have to sue for each individual act of retaliation, but argued that there would be nothing wrong with the BLM "playing hardball," especially if the government was offering a fair exchange to obtain the easement.
But Tribe argued that the government did not offer a fair exchange but rather "dug in" and performed a number of illegal acts to retaliate against Robbins.
Tribe further argued that the statutory definition of extortion includes acts by public officials who use their authority to obtain property, not for themselves but for the government, and because of that definition, public officials are not immune to the law.
Still, several justices expressed skepticism over Robbins' argument, arguing that supporting it could create a precedent that would flood the legal system with similar lawsuits. "The possibility of the legal imagination becomes endless," Justice Stephen Breyer said.
Chief Justice John Roberts added that such a ruling could enable private individuals to claim that anything a government employee does under color of law is retaliation, including necessary actions performed by agents of the Internal Revenue Service and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. He noted that there are other federal laws and administrative regulations that allow citizens to pursue grievances against federal agencies.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Robbins, he can pursue his case in Wyoming District Court against BLM employees Charles Wilkie, Darrell Barnees, Teryl Shryack, Michael Miller, Gene Leone and David Wallace.
The high court is expected to issue a ruling before it adjourns in June.
Thanks for the update.
Unfortunately, if there is no accountability in the courts...all that's left is the Second Ammendment....which is, after all, in the end, why it exists.
It that Breyer again, Justice Breyer, what about the long standing, if not constitutional, right to "redress of grievance"?
If the Dims get into the White House again, look for more Wacos and Ruby Ridges.
My family confronted this issue after Jimmah Cahtah's federal surface mine law went into effect. Department of the Interior employees were beyond arrogant during their inspections and any appeal was back to the same federal a**hole.
And, as in the days of Patrick Henry, the government can ignore them.
We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne.
The unconstitutional taking of his property by the use of extortion instead the Constitutionally prescribed method gives rise to the 5th amendment claim. Property can't be taken without due process of law or just compensation.
They just hate it when that pesky Constitution thingy setting precedent.
They left me alone after I filed the suit but I finally let it go. Something like that can completely consume your life. I wish Robbins all the best and am glad he got some help. It would be a great day in America for him to win.
I am a little shocked to see Laurence Tribe on the right side of a property rights issue.
In my case, the Park Superintendent was transfered and my greatest satisfaction was the new Superintendent begging me to please not pick on her. They behave much more neighborly when they suffer personal exposure for their actions.
Wow. Great story, thanks. I always liked the saying, 'One man with courage is a majority'.
>>>...if there is no accountability in the courts...all that's left is the Second Ammendment...<<<
If there is no accountability in the courts, the 2nd Amdendment is as good as dead. Therefore, all that would be left is the natural right to keep and bear arms for self defense.
This is a great post, well worth those of us who believe in individual owners of property having rights over our government reading. God bless this land owner.
State, county and municipal govt is the same way. Govt employees frequently get personally and emotionally involved in their duties and will act unprofessionally as a result. I have no doubt that some govt employees harrass citizens and violate their rights as a means of retaliation. Had that problem with a county "code enforcement officer" aka building code jerk. Fortunately, the local judge routinely dismissed all of their citations because he thought that they were a bunch of jerks as well.
It already is a precedent in Wyoming state court.
A college professor took it upon himself to intimidate and yell at a student about something in class.
When she sued, the Prof used the "academic fredom" defense.
The Wyoming Supreme Court said, show us in your job description where you were hired to yell at a student and intimidate her. If not, you were acting outside the scope of what you were hired for.
Immunity only extends to the scope of your lawful employment.
This is one of the most important cases to ever be heard by the USSC.
Criminal activity by zealous actions of individuals should not be shielded by the might of the US govt.
They are on the verge of dropping out of existance.
Breyer...
Disgusting!
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.