Epstein Secrets

ng domestic drug interdiction checkpoints "does not affect the validity of border searches or searches at places like airports"): United States v. Ross. 456 U.S. 798. 823. 102 &Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982) (explaining that while the Fourth Amendment gives protection to containers in domestic ve

rence and the dissent that the standard we announce will prove unmanageable or give border agents a "Sophie's choice" between thorough searches and Bivens actions. Concurrence at 977-78; Dissent at 986. Determining whether reasonable suspicion is required does not necessitate a "complex legal determi

border patrol officers with a difficult choice: either protect our nation from those who mean us harm, or risk their own jobs and livelihood in a Bivens action, or disciplinary proceedings. Apart from being administratively impractical, the majority's reasonable suspicion requirement disregards well

understood as a venue provision than a jurisdictional provision—it specifies in which "court of appeals" a victim should file. Cf. United States v. Ross. 963 F.3d 1056. 1063 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (noting "the Supreme Court's directive that courts should avoid 'jurisdictionalizing' issues" that a

s probation violation ...."); Davies v. Former Acting Dist. Dir.-Orlando. 484 F. App'x 385. 389 & n.5 (11th Cir. 2012) (affirming the dismissal of a Bivens claim as barred by the applicable statute of limitations but noting that. "(elven assuming arguendo that the statute of limitations did not bar this

ct Court for the Dis- trict of South Carolina, G. Ross Anderson, Jr., J., certified class, and lender a

d arrested him, could be personally sued for monetary damages for deprivation of the plaintiff's rights under the fourth amendment. The holding of Bivens was extended to deprivations of fifth amend- ment due process rights in But: v. Econo- mou,15 to violations of the right to equal protection as emb