NCLA Asks Eighth Circuit to Reject Blanket Immunity for Federally Cross-Deputized State Police Officer
16 July 2024 - 12:26AM
Today, the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an amicus curiae
brief in Mohamud v. Weyker before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit. NCLA urges the Court to rule that Americans
maintain the right to pursue damages against state or local law
enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights—even
when those officers were cross-deputized at the time of the rights
violations. Cross-deputized officers have limited federal authority
to fulfill specific duties on joint federal-state task forces,
while maintaining the full authority of their state or local
positions. But in an alarming trend, many courts across the
country—including the district court in this case—have effectively
immunized cross-deputized officers, ruling that such officers, who
operate under both state and federal law, cannot be held liable for
damages under either. NCLA asks the Eighth Circuit to break with
this dangerous practice and permit plaintiffs to hold
cross-deputized state and local officers accountable under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations committed under color
of state law.
According to the Plaintiff-Appellant in this
case, Defendant Heather Weyker, a Saint Paul, Minnesota police
officer, framed teenager Hamdi Mohamud—among other innocent
individuals—for the state-level crime of witness tampering,
convincing another state officer to arrest her under false
pretenses. As a result, Ms. Mohamud spent over two years behind
bars in pre-trial detention before being released without charges,
in addition to the 30 other individuals whom Officer Weyker had
framed. Shockingly, the district court ruled that Weyker was
insulated from liability under § 1983 for her unconstitutional
conduct as a state officer because she had been cross-deputized at
the time and thus temporarily held federal law enforcement
authority too. As a result, Ms. Mohamud was denied any way to
recover damages or to hold Weyker accountable for her deplorable
actions.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Egbert v.
Boule rendered it virtually impossible for most plaintiffs to
pursue damages against federal officials for constitutional
violations. As such, § 1983, enacted as part of the Civil Rights
Act of 1871, is often a plaintiff’s only viable vehicle for
recovering damages for constitutional violations committed by
cross-deputized officers who operate under the color of both state
and federal law. Congress designed the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to
deter state actors from abusing their authority and to provide
victims a route to relief if such deterrence fails. Various courts
nationwide betray that statutory design when they reject the § 1983
claims of plaintiffs like Ms. Mohamud against cross-deputized
officers and decide that these officers act exclusively under the
authority of federal law, regardless of the particular facts or
circumstances. This practice ignores the realities of the
dual-pronged authority wielded by cross-deputized officers.
§ 1983 contains no liability carveout for state
or local officers who also happen to be assisting with federal
joint task forces. At minimum, Weyker was not operating exclusively
under federal authority when she relied on her state law
enforcement position and state authority to have Ms. Mohamud
arrested for a state crime. The Eighth Circuit must reverse the
district court’s nonsensical ruling and allow Ms. Mohamud to
proceed with her action for damages under § 1983.
NCLA released the following statements:
“When state or local police officers violate the
Constitution, there must be a way to hold them accountable.
Luckily, Congress enacted just such a way, and it’s been around for
over 150 years: § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Allowing
cross-deputized police officers to skate by free of liability for
even the most heinous misconduct eliminates any deterrent effect
that § 1983 might otherwise have had on bad actors, denies victims
any viable route to relief, defies voluminous Supreme Court
precedent, and turns § 1983 on its head.”— Casey
Norman, Litigation Counsel, NCLA
“The U.S. Supreme Court disfavors and narrowly
construes so-called Bivens liability for federal officials because
the Court, rather than Congress, created that cause of action. To
be consistent then, federal courts ought to construe § 1983—which
Congress did create—broadly enough to encompass cross-deputized
state and local officers.”— Mark Chenoweth, President,
NCLA
For more information visit
the amicus page here.
ABOUT NCLA
NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights
group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to
protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the
Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other
pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and
federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that
will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.
Ruslan Moldovanov
New Civil Liberties Alliance
202-869-5237
ruslan.moldovanov@ncla.legal