Maybe this is a basic question, I'd appreciate anyone who can answer w/ some experience/knowledge...

[RockRaven]

I know there is some degree of immunity against being sued (personally, not suing the fed gov) for federal employees -- dependent upon whether they acted within their official duties, unless they violate the Constitution or federal statutes.

So, assuming infinite crowd-sourced or angel-donor or pro bono legal representation for these separated parents/kids, how much could Kelly, Nielsen, Sessions, et al. get personally f-ed up by being sued? Are there valid Con law/federal law violations here? Even if the detainees were to lose, how quickly/at what stage would the cases likely be dismissed? What would it cost them to defend such a case? How many cases can be brought separately (no pun intended)? Can these moral monsters be buried under legal liability/legal bills? Is this an avenue worth pursuing?

[pnwmom]

1. You ask an important question, and one that a lawyer on this centrist legal blog

has considered.

He says that some of the workers could be facing legal exposure.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/legal-considerations-separating-families-border

Last week, I shared some thoughts—based on my experience working on sensitive counterterrorism cases at the Justice Department in the post-9/11 era—regarding the ethical dilemma that federal agents, lawyers and other professionals face each day they are directed to implement the new policy of separating children from their parents. This post raises issues regarding the rights of the affected children and potential legal exposure faced by the workforce implementing this policy. None of the legal issues discussed below should be read in isolation; the ethical arguments for immediately ceasing this practice remain.

SNIP

If this analysis is correct—that DHS does not have a written policy authorizing the separation of family members in the course of referring migrants for prosecution—it goes a long way toward explaining the chaos at the border in the past month. An interpretation along these lines both recognizes the semantic game the secretary is playing (“there is no policy”) with the apparent practical reality that DHS has not produced a policy document explaining how the goal of 100 percent prosecution should be met or how agents should implement it. That lack of policy guidance—in addition to the secretary’s statement that a policy does not even exist—should give government agents working on the border, as well as their unions, pause.

SNIP

Based on the information publicly available so far, and given the lack of written guidance for agents on the front lines to follow, agents separating families in order to achieve the goal of 100 percent prosecution may be operating in a legal gray zone. As far as can be discerned from public reports, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the homeland security secretary have not provided the workforce with official guidance explaining the legal basis on which they are removing children from their parents for sustained periods of time. While attention has been given to how parents can locate their children, the equally if not more compelling argument against the policy is the right of the child to be reunited with the parent.

[saidsimplesimon]

2. There are a number

of legal minds who post here. I am not one of them. The Judicial Branch appears to offer our best hope of defense against this onslaught from criminals in this administration.

[smirkymonkey]

3. K&R