Sign in

Harrison Stark

@harrisonstark.bsky.social
130 followers 162 following 14 posts

Democracy, federalism, civil rights + remedies, state con law | Senior Counsel, Dir. Special Projects at @uwlawdemocracy.bsky.social, formerly ACLU-VT | NEFAC Bd. Member | all views my own

PostsRepliesMedia
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
(If you made it this far, I’d urge you to check out our “state checks against federal overreach” work at @uwlawdemocracy.bsky.social: statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/our-work/exp.... Lots more discussion of how the Supremacy Clause does--or often doesn't--bar state efforts to protect residents)
statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu
Exploring State Checks Against Federal Overreach
Questions considered include whether states can prosecute federal officials, states can create damages remedies against federal officials, and states can…
000
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
Could some of the laws’ provisions conflict with federal law? Perhaps. For example, the Bivens Act encompasses violations of the IL Const., too. But if so, it’s that conflict that’s the problem. Not the fact of damages liability. The opinion never IDs any actual conflict between state and fed law.
100
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
Esp. here: the Bivens Act creates a COA for federal constitutional violations, and the courthouse statute prevents arrests that (at least according to IL) federal law nowhere authorizes.
100
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
True, where state law “controls” or “obstructs” federal functions, the Supremacy Clause intervenes. But that shouldn’t be assumed by the possibility of state liability for fed actors, alone.
101
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
Nothing suggests that the U.S. suffers a concrete injury just because a state law could apply to a federal official. History suggests otherwise: state tort law was the main way that individuals held federal agents accountable for constitutional violations, for centuries.
101
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
But fed agents have never enjoyed anything close to presidential immunity, either civil or criminal. The opposite: SCOTUS has said repeatedly that state law can apply to fed officials. As my colleague @bgodar.bsky.social has highlighted, this includes state CRIMINAL prosecution of feds.
101
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
Court analogizes to Trump v. United States, the presidential immunity decision: “Law enforcement, not unlike the head of the executive branch, cannot carry out its duties under the burden of discerning and weighing the effects of conflicting state law.” (p. 10)
101
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
More troublingly, court suggests that the U.S. suffers a Supremacy Clause injury NOW simply because state law creates civil liability that can apply to feds. The risk, according to the court (and DOJ), is that state accountability tomorrow chills federal officials today.
101
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
Is the court suggesting that state officials are proper defendants here because they could, theoretically, use a private right of action themselves -- later? That’s not how standing usually works. In fact, hard to see how DOJ wouldn’t have ripe standing against every IL resident under that logic.
101
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
Ct pointed to AG’s auth. to rep IL, Gov’s duty to ensure "faithful execution of the laws” and said: well, “any person” can bring a claim against fed officers. But a “person” can sue only if THEY suffer a constitutional tort. There is no state enforcement. And future const. injuries are speculative.
101
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
State officials have no role. DOJ sued the state + state officials anyway (Gov + AG), who argued: there’s clearly no standing, because nobody has sued agents yet, and in any event, we don’t enforce these laws! Court said: no matter.
101
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
The IL Bivens Act creates a path to sue if someone violates your constitutional rights. The courthouse law protects courthouse attendees from warrantless civil arrests. Both of these laws work by allowing residents to individually sue if their rights are violated – AKA “private rights of action.”
101
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
This decision green-lighting DOJ’s challenge to Illinois’s converse-1983 law and courthouse-arrest statute is troubling, especially from a federalism perspective. 🧵
101
Harrison Stark @harrisonstark.bsky.social · 12/05/2026
Excited to publish this new report on state + local efforts to protect residents from immigration raids + warrantless arrests at places like hospitals, schools, courthouses, libraries and shelters. Many of these state policies are on stronger legal ground than some might assume.
040
Reposted by Harrison Stark
State Democracy Research Initiative @uwlawdemocracy.bsky.social · 07/05/2026
🔥There is still time to apply for our Staff Attorney and Fellowship positions!🔥 Learn more and apply here🏃‍♂️‍➡️➡️ statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/get-involved/work-with-us
011
Reposted by Harrison Stark
Matthew Segal @segalmr.bsky.social · 28/04/2026
Vermont enacts state law allowing individuals to sue govt officials, including *federal* officials, for violating U.S. Constitution. www.bostonglobe.com/2026/04/28/m...
29927
Reposted by Harrison Stark
Bryna Godar @bgodar.bsky.social · 20/04/2026
While federal laws and the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause place constraints on what property-related tools states and localities can use to push back on ICE actions, this report explains that they still have some avenues for ensuring the federal government and its contractors do not overreach.
064
Reposted by Harrison Stark
Bryna Godar @bgodar.bsky.social · 16/04/2026
The assault charges are in keeping with a long history of state prosecutions of federal officers. Read more on that history here: statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/our-work/can...
012
Reposted by Harrison Stark
Matthew Segal @segalmr.bsky.social · 14/04/2026
New lawsuit filed by valid visa holder against federal immigration agents includes "converse 1983" claims under Maine Civil Rights Act. 👇
0156