| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| High court hears case on right to sue federal employees |
| 2007-03-25 |
| 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. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #9 Go to the following link for a fairly balanced article on this subject: http://cowboytimes.blogspot.com/2007/03/high-noon-for-hot-springs-rancher-at.html By GIL BRADY for The Cowboy Picayune-Sunny Times. It sounds like Robbins is not squeeky clean in his motives and the BLM types played by the rules in a hardball fashion. Pick you own side but I'm not enthused with rich "Rancher" wanna-be's that don't take care of the land & infringe on their neighbors grazing. Used to shoot folks for that. |
| Posted by: Throger Thains8048 2007-03-25 19:11 |
| #8 The worst thing going against this guy is that he is being represented by Laurence Tribe, as notorious a nogoodnik lawyer as was William Kunstler. He long held ambitions of being put on the SCOTUS, but is such a turd that not even Bill Clinton would do it. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-03-25 18:58 |
| #7 Being able to sue IRS and OSHA employees for abuse of power would be a bonus, not a detriment. Since by definition the IRS violates our rights it would a nice way of getting rid of it. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-03-25 18:06 |
| #6 These acts are criminal or they should be. I don't think anyone is above the law when it comes to criminal stuff. |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-03-25 15:43 |
| #5 Notice how seldom the term "government worker" is used? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-03-25 15:02 |
| #4 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. Not a lot of information but it looks like Robbins tried to play hardball & the BLM folks replied in kind. It looks like he had the Right Of Way previouly agreed upon but felt no obligation to allow the BLM the easement. OK, some office type at the BLM screwed up w/r timeliness on the recording the easement but how much would that easement have hurt Robbins? As far as the "BLM harassment" I suspect this is similar the driving a red corvette. You attract unwanted attention, no matter what you do. You don't drive even 5 mph over the limit or you are toast. Robbins attracted the BLM's attention. OR they could have been doing their jobs and he might be the sort to sue just cause he could. There is insufficient information w/r to the parties concerned. Most real ranchers in the West have a lot of property & no money to speak of. The late comers make their money elsewhere then they come in, buy several ranches from the "natives" and then declare themselves to be "ranchers". It would be interesting to know if Robbins is one such individual as he seems to have plenty of money. |
| Posted by: Throger Thains8048 2007-03-25 13:12 |
| #3 I don't think it an issue that he can sue the govt, I think this is an issue of suing individuals in govt which is different. He can sue BLM as a whole, but suing individuals in the BLM is the sticking point. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-03-25 13:00 |
| #2 As a Gov't employee, you are individually liable if negligent, corrupt, or not following direction/official policy. I've dealt with USF&W and Cal F&G environmental staff where they basically extort either additional mitigation or $ for funding their pet projects in exchange for not delaying your project. It'll be tough to make this stick. They are pretty smart about how they operate |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-03-25 12:48 |
| #1 The court MUST find for Mr. Robbins. The government works for us. We own them. That fact MUST remain the controlling factor. Therefore they can never turn against any citizen with impunity. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-03-25 12:36 |