“We cannot stand idly by while rogue federal agents...kill our neighbors on the street in cold blood,” said Pressley.
Following the fatal ICE shootings of Renee Good, Keith Porter, and others, U.S. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley introduced a new bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would end qualified immunity, expanding accountability for ICE agents.
Following the fatal ICE shootings of Renee Good, Keith Porter, and others, U.S. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley introduced a new bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would end qualified immunity, expanding accountability for ICE agents.
“We cannot stand idly by while rogue federal agents—emboldened by the Trump White House—ravage our communities, brutalize families, and kill our neighbors on the street in cold blood,” Pressley said in a statement about the Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026, which is co-led by Senator Ed Markey in the U.S. Senate.
Between this and President Trump’s call for a new crime bill that would further insulate police from liability, accountability and charges of official misconduct, we could be entering a new era of police brutality, lawlessness and the reckless deployment of lethal force on unarmed civilians.
“Shoot first and think later.” That’s how Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor describes the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a rule that protects government officials (including police officers) from facing the consequences when they violate our constitutional rights. This doctrine allows police officers to escape accountability for their misconduct and signals to the public that cops are above the law. In any other job, individuals who cause harm are held accountable for their actions.
Cop Stops Family From Going To Emergency Room Update
I can't wrap my head around people like this cop. Do they try to change the story to make themselves look better, or does some part of their brain actually perceive the entire situation in a way that favors themselves? Like near the end, when he says they were cussing him out and being hostile at beginning, even though that's not how it went down.
I guess oaths to the constitution mean nothing now.
SCOTUS has ruled on Gonzalez v. Trevino in an 8-1 vote. Per the ruling, when suing the police for retaliation, the person suing does not need to provide precise instances when others were not arrested on the same charge. General evidence that they would not be likely to be arrested is enough.
The story behind this case is wild, and this ruling is pretty important. Hit Keep Reading for both.
Gonzalez in this case is Sylvia Gonzalez, a 77-year old woman who, it must be said, was the first Latina elected to the city council of Castle Hills, TX (pop. ~4,000). Edward Trevino is the mayor of Castle Hills. If this is starting to raise alarm bells for those of you involved in local politics, you're absolutely right.
Gonzalez was a local resident who ran for office because she and many, many others felt that the city manager, Ryan Rapelye, sucked at his job. She ran on the promise of getting rid of him. Well, she got elected. Then the city attorney and the rest of the city council tried to claim that, since the sheriff who swore her in wasn't technically qualified to do so, her votes didn't count. A judge threw that out. Then Gonzalez got started on circulating a non-binding citizens' petition to get rid of Rapelye.
Here's what happened next: after Gonzalez submitted the signed petition (at which point it became a government document), at the end of a meeting it was sitting among some documents on top of a podium. Gonzalez put all the documents in her binder.
Now, before we all get excited here: a key point in Gonzalez's case which this decision does not cover is whether she did this intentionally or not. There are questions about whether all the signatures are legit; some residents have said she coerced them. On the other hand, that could just be the council's faction talking. That part is going back to trial, so no answer here.
HOWEVER. What's clear is what happened next: weeks later, Gonzalez was arrested on the charge of tampering with a government document. She was thrown in jail overnight, and her mugshot was released. The charge was almost immediately dropped, but she wound up paying I think over $10,000 in legal fees and her reputation was hurt. Because of this, Gonzalez then sued the police, claiming retribution.
What's retribution? What it sounds like: if you engage in protected First Amendment activity, and the police arrest you, that's retribution if you can prove that they didn't have probable cause. In that case, you can sue them.
Wait a second. Sue the police for arresting people? That's right, darlings, this is a qualified immunity case!
Now, in 2019 SCOTUS added a second way to prove retribution. Instead of showing they didn't have probable cause, you can sue the cops if you can prove that someone doing the same thing without the message you were stating wouldn't have been arrested. For example--and this is the example SCOTUS used when it was argued--if you shout "FUCK THE POLICE!" and then jaywalk, and you get arrested and jailed for jaywalking, you have a pretty fucking good case for retribution.
Tampering with a government document is, basically, a ridiculous charge in this case. Gonzalez showed that at trial by citing stats saying no one has been arrested for picking up a petition ever. The trial court agreed, but an appeals court ruled that no, she had to cite specific examples of people picking up petitions and not getting arrested. Thus, SCOTUS.
So… what the hell happened?
This ruling is a per curium ruling. There are a number of things that can mean, but in this particular case it means that no Justice's opinion got the five votes necessary to be the majority opinion. Thus, this is another case where we have a bunch of concurring opinions.
Alito's concurrence actually gives some reasons for why they ruled what they did. They're technical, but they amount to, basically, saying that you can't decide whether evidence counts for this exception at the same time you're trying to figure out if there's enough of it. Kavanaugh's is the--technical term here--weakest shit ever, literally saying that this ruling is fine because it "does no harm." Jackson's concurrence (Sotomayer joining) says you should allow all kinds of evidence for this!
And the lone dissenter? That's right, iiiiiiiiiiiiit's Thomas! His dissenting opinion says that this exception shouldn't exist at all and you should always have to show probable cause, likely because he's a bitter old man who hates goodness and joy.
Okay, why does this matter?
One, because it protects free speech from retribution and makes it easier to fight back if that happens. Two, because this is a (very, very) small chink in the armor of qualified immunity, which should die in a fire. (For those who don't know: qualified immunity is what makes it so you can't sue cops.) Those two together make this a big deal to me, narrow as the ruling is. It's a good day for protesters and objectors everywhere.
It's also interesting just how much this fractured the court, especially given how often that seems to be happening. The conservative supermajority we've all been fearing is--ever so slowly, bit by minuscule bit--weakening. I'm still extremely worried about many upcoming decisions, but this has given me some hope.
