The Supreme Court’s ruling last week, which overturned Roe v. Wade, is nothing less than a shameful, sweeping, politically-driven decision that will have life-altering, and indeed, life-threatening consequences for women and other people who can become pregnant. The devastation of this moment and how it will erode so many of our fundamental rights cannot be underestimated.

Last week’s decision revokes the federal constitutional right to abortion, and with it our agency over our lives and futures. As a result of this decision, half the states are expected to ban abortion.

This is an outrageous attack on women’s rights and the bodily autonomy of everyone who can become pregnant, and the effects will be immediate and far reaching. Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy and give birth against their will has devastating impacts, derailing their life, education, and career plans, and assigning them to a future they never wanted or envisioned for themselves.

As bad as this ruling is, this is just the beginning. Extremists have made it clear they won’t be content until abortion is banned nationwide. And they won’t stop with abortion either. The same extremists seeking to control the bodies of pregnant people are coming for our rights to access birth control and gender-affirming health care, to marry who we love, and to vote. But the ACLU has been fighting for our fundamental rights since before Roe v. Wade was decided, and we are not backing down now — or ever. The ACLU and our supporters have been preparing for this moment.

The state of Mississippi used Dobbs to issue a direct invitation to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. The case was brought on behalf of the last abortion clinic in Mississippi by the Center for Reproductive Rights, and it challenged a state law banning abortion after 15 weeks, in plain violation of Roe. The state asked the court not just to uphold the 15-week ban, but to reconsider the constitutionality of abortion entirely and to declare that the Constitution does not protect the right to abortion at all. That is precisely what the court ruled last week.

Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy against their will has life-altering consequences, including enduring serious health risks from continued pregnancy and childbirth, making it harder to escape poverty, derailing one’s education, career, and life plans, and making it more difficult to leave an abusive partner. This decision will also lead to miscarriages being subject to suspicion, investigation, and arrest, and patients and doctors being thrown in jail.

These burdens will disproportionately fall on women of color, those struggling to make ends meet, young people, immigrants, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ communities.

Last week’s ruling will also have deadly consequences, with the harm falling hardest on Black women and other people of color who already face a maternal mortality crisis that is most severe in the same states that are determined to ban abortion. In fact, Black women are three times more likely than white women to die during childbirth or shortly thereafter. If abortion is banned nationwide, pregnancy-related deaths are estimated to increase by 21 percent nationwide, and 33 percent among Black women.

Without the federal right to abortion, about half the states are expected to ban abortion in the near future. Some of these laws will take effect immediately, some will require additional action to put the law into effect, and some states will pass new laws.

This didn’t happen overnight. It has been part of a decades-long project to take away a right upon which people have relied for half a century. Anti-abortion politicians have spent decades enacting a patchwork of abortion bans at the state level that pushed abortion out of reach and laid a foundation for the moment we find ourselves in now: when they can ban abortion throughout wide swaths of the country. But we know they will not stop there. Last week’s decision brings anti-abortion politicians one step closer to their ultimate goal of outlawing abortion nationwide.

Everyone deserves the dignity and power to decide for themselves if and when they have a child. Those who are trying to take away our basic rights are counting on our silence. We cannot afford to stay quiet when our rights and our freedoms are on the line, and we won’t.

Join our reproductive freedom champions list today!

This is a moment of crisis, but we are not powerless. Abortion access is literally on the ballot this year, and we must vote like our rights depend on it — because they do.

With the federal constitutional right to abortion gone, state constitutional rights are more important than ever. In Michigan and Vermont, efforts are underway to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in their state constitutions.

Conversely, proposed state constitutional amendments to take away abortion rights are on the ballot in Kansas this August, and in Kentucky this November. We cannot let those measures succeed.

We can make our voices heard by taking to the streets. Protests and actions are taking place across the country, and you can locate events in your state here. You can join these efforts and sign up for alerts from the ACLU by texting FIGHTBACK to 826-23 for more actions and updates on the crucial work ahead.*

You can also help secure abortion access for those who need it most by donating to abortion funds that help people access critical care, and by donating to the ACLU.

Finally, you can help fight the stigma of abortion by sharing your stories and talking about how abortion access has changed your life. Talk to your friends, family, and neighbors about why abortion access is essential.

It is up to us — the overwhelming majority of Americans who support abortion access — to come together and fight for a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies and futures. We are joining forces with partners and working to mobilize folks in every corner of the country to get involved in the fight for bodily autonomy.

The ACLU will continue to do everything in our power to ensure all people can access the care they need, when they need it. We are fighting for our rights everywhere: in the courts, in Congress and state legislatures, in the streets, and at the ballot box. Politicians don’t get the last word. We do.

*By texting FIGHTBACK to 826-23 you are agreeing to receive phone calls and texts (including automated recurring text messages) from the ACLU and its state affiliates at the contacts provided. Message & Data Rates May Apply. Text STOP to opt out of automated texts. Privacy statement.

The Supreme Court recently dealt a blow to federal police accountability in Egbert v. Boule. The case, in which the ACLU filed an amicus brief, centers on Robert Boule, who runs a bed-and-breakfast on the U.S.-Canada border. Boule sued Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert for damages for violating his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

When Egbert entered the inn without a warrant to investigate a guest staying there, Boule stepped between the guest and the agent and asked the agent to leave. Egbert then threw Boule to the ground, injuring him. After Boule exercised his First Amendment right to file a complaint and administrative claim with Egbert’s supervisor, the agent retaliated against him by prompting multiple unfounded investigations into Boule.

The court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Boule is not entitled to seek money damages for the harm caused by Egbert’s excessive force and retaliation. For over 50 years, under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, people have sought money damages against federal agents for violating their constitutional rights. But the court called Boule’s case a “new context” for Bivens liability and would not allow his claims. While the ruling further limits people’s ability to hold Border Patrol agents accountable in court, and undercuts an important deterrent to misconduct, it did not sanction the agent’s unconstitutional actions or grant agents permission to violate people’s rights in the future.

Credit: AP Photo/Greg Bull

Here are four things you need to know about the ruling:

The court’s decision in no way changes your constitutional rights when interacting with border agents in the border region. While the facts of the case involve Border Patrol’s intrusion of the inn without a warrant, the court’s decision does not sanction those actions.

Border Patrol, and its parent agency Customs and Border Protection (CBP), are bound by constitutional limitations, which prohibit agents from entering your home without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects against arbitrary searches and seizures of people and their property, in the border region and beyond. Within 25 miles of the border, as permitted by a separate statute not at issue in this case, Border Patrol is permitted to enter private property, such as your yard or ranch land, without a warrant but is explicitly barred, even that close to the border, from entering a “dwelling,” such as your house, without a warrant.

Border Patrol also remains obligated to respect a broad range of other constitutional rights. For example, a Border Patrol agent cannot lawfully pull you over or otherwise detain you without “reasonable suspicion,” which means the agent must have specific, articulable facts that make it reasonable to believe you committed or are committing a violation of immigration or other federal law, not just a hunch. A Border Patrol agent also cannot search you or your belongings without your voluntary consent, unless they have probable cause, a higher standard requiring a reasonable belief that an immigration violation or crime has occurred. You always have the right to remain silent and say you wish to speak with an attorney.

In other words, your constitutional rights are still intact, even in the border region, but the court’s decision will make it more difficult to hold federal agents accountable when they violate those rights. By further cutting off the ability to seek money damages under Bivens, the court has narrowed the options available to seek justice for border agents’ frequent violations of constitutional protections in the border region.

Much has been made of the 100 mile border zone, but you have the same constitutional rights within the border zone as you do anywhere else in the country. There are only two narrow circumstances in which the Border Patrol is permitted to act outside of normal Fourth Amendment limitations on searches and seizures.

1. Checkpoints: The statute allows for immigration agents within “a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States,” to stop and search vessels, trains, aircraft, or other vehicles without a warrant. A “reasonable distance” is defined as 100 air miles from any international boundary. In 1976, the Supreme Court decided in U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte that Border Patrol may operate checkpoints and stop vehicles, without a warrant, for brief questioning of their immigration status even if they have no particularized suspicion of unlawful activity or immigration status. If you are not a U.S. citizen, you must show your visa, permanent resident card, or other immigration paperwork. Border Patrol still needs “probable cause” or consent to search you or your vehicle at a checkpoint.
2. Private property: As previously noted, within 25 miles of the border, the statute permits agents to enter private property but not “dwellings” without a warrant.

Outside of these specific circumstances, all other constitutional protections apply within the border zone, and to individuals who interact with Border Patrol agents. The 100 mile border zone is not a Constitution-free zone.

American Civil Liberties Union

Know Your Rights | 100 Mile Border Zone | ACLU

The ProblemThe Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.

In denying Boule’s Bivens claim, the court argued that the Border Patrol’s non-binding administrative grievance process offered an adequate alternative to money damages for Robert Boule. It does not — as clearly evidenced by the retaliation Boule faced after filing a grievance, and Border Patrol’s decision to keep Egbert on even after finding he acted inappropriately.

We know how frustrating the grievance process is first hand. The ACLU has filed over a dozen administrative complaints since 2020 documenting abuses suffered by hundreds of individuals that went unanswered for months and resulted in few, if any, changes to agency policy. The process, which is not subject to judicial review and has no mechanism for complainants to participate, focuses on disciplining officer misconduct rather than any other individual remedy to complainants.

If administrative oversight mechanisms are to provide any kind of justice, the Department of Homeland Security, CBP’s parent agency, must urgently make several changes. The department should create a uniform process to review and investigate all immigration and border related complaints, including implementing screening procedures for ensuring prompt assignment of a neutral investigator; prompt confirmation of receipt and whether an investigation has been initiated; a requirement that all relevant records (including video and audio files) be turned over to to investigators within 14 calendar days; written resolution of complaints; and appointment of an independent decision maker to impose discipline. The agency then must ensure individuals who they find at fault face meaningful accountability, rather than giving them a pass, as they did with Egbert.

This decision has significant consequences for the victims of abuse by federal law enforcement. It means that people who have been subjected to Border Patrol abuse in the same way as Boule cannot obtain monetary compensation in court, and it may make it more difficult for other victims of abuse by federal law enforcement to bring their claims, as well.

While the ruling is a disappointment, the fight is not over. Congress can, and should, pass legislation to enshrine the right of individuals to sue federal law enforcement officers and receive damages from agents who violate their rights. If it did so, victims of Border Patrol abuse would no longer have to contend with the Egbert ruling, and more broadly, the availability of this important remedy for abuse by federal agents would no longer depend on the willingness of increasingly-hostile courts to allow Bivens cases to go forward.