SCARBOROUGH, MAINE — Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz filed a federal lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security officers with the help of the ACLU of Maine in spring 2026. The complaint alleges constitutional violations following an arrest and detention in Scarborough, Maine, despite the plaintiff possessing legal documentation.

Carvajal-Muñoz is a civil engineer from Colombia. According to the federal lawsuit, he told arresting officers he had a visa through his employer. Carol Garvan stated that Carvajal-Muñoz was arrested while possessing a Real ID that proved his legal status.

The complaint details a sequence of physical actions taken by the officers during the incident. According to the federal lawsuit, officers smashed Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz's car window. They then dragged him out of his car while pointing a Taser at him.

Following the extraction from the vehicle, the officers handcuffed Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz and forced him into the back of an unmarked SUV. According to the federal lawsuit, officers drove him across state lines. He was held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Massachusetts.

Officers released Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz from the ICE facility in Massachusetts around 9 p.m. on the day of his arrest. The release occurred after officials realized they had no reason to hold him. The subsequent lawsuit seeks accountability for the detention and the methods used during the arrest. "There has to be a way to hold federal officers accountable when they are plainly violating the U.S. Constitution," said Carol Garvan, legal director for the ACLU of Maine.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson responded to inquiries regarding the incident via email. The spokesperson stated that any officers who violate policy are "held accountable." The email further asserted that "DHS law enforcement methods abide by the U.S. Constitution including the Fourth Amendment."

The Supreme Court later ruled that Bivens claims could apply to sexual discrimination in federal employment and deliberate indifference to medical needs in federal prison. However, recent decisions have narrowed the scope of such lawsuits. In a 2024 court decision regarding LaQuan Johnson, a federal judge noted that circumstances where a court could extend Bivens were "as rare as the ivory-billed woodpecker."

Attorney Gregory Cui with the MacArthur Justice Center commented on the current state of legal recourse for citizens. "If they punch you in the face you have no remedy, but if they don't give you your medicine you do have a remedy," said attorney Gregory Cui with the MacArthur Justice Center. "The fact that [the court] is doing this now in the midst of one of the most dangerous expansions in the use of federal law enforcement is alarming," said Gregory Cui.

Another case involved Andrew Fields. In 2022, Andrew Fields attempted to sue the federal Bureau of Prisons and its employees over alleged abuse in a federal prison in Virginia. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals initially ruled that Andrew Fields' case should proceed.

However, the Supreme Court reversed the 4th Circuit's decision in the Andrew Fields case last summer and sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Andrew Fields' case after the Supreme Court remand.

Despite these hurdles, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Bivens case filed by a federal prisoner who says he was denied treatment for a broken tailbone resulting from a prison fight. This pending case may provide further clarity on the limits of the doctrine.

Plaintiffs in situations like Carvajal-Muñoz's often turn to the Federal Tort Claims Act as an alternative. Civilians can file cases under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but liability rests with the United States government rather than individual officers. This distinction shifts the target of the lawsuit from the specific agents involved to the federal entity itself.

Procedural differences also affect these claims. Cases filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act are heard by a judge instead of a jury. Additionally, plaintiffs cannot sue for punitive damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. These limitations restrict the potential financial recovery and the nature of the trial process compared to a standard civil suit against private individuals.

Why It Matters

The lawsuit filed by Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz tests the boundaries of the Bivens doctrine, a legal precedent established in 1971 that allowed individuals to sue federal agents for constitutional violations. As the Supreme Court has increasingly restricted the application of Bivens in recent years, citing separation of powers concerns, plaintiffs face fewer avenues to hold individual officers personally liable. The outcome of this case could further define whether victims of alleged Fourth Amendment violations by DHS officers have any meaningful judicial remedy beyond claims against the government itself.

This legal battle occurs during broader debates about federal law enforcement practices and accountability. With the Department of Homeland Security operating as a large federal executive department, the mechanisms for addressing misconduct by its agents remain a point of contention. The reliance on the Federal Tort Claims Act offers a path for compensation but lacks the deterrent effect of punitive damages and jury trials. Legal experts argue that the current judicial trend leaves gaps in accountability, particularly for physical abuses that do not fall under specific statutory protections like medical care in prisons.

Timeline

In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents that Webster Bivens could sue federal drug enforcement officers for warrantless entry, search, and arrest. On September 4, 2002, the District Court for the District of Maine issued a decision in In Re the Complaint of Atlantic Mariner, Inc. for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a family could not sue a federal Border Patrol agent who shot and killed their 15-year-old son.

Also in 2022, the Supreme Court ruled against a bed-and-breakfast owner who attempted to sue a Border Patrol agent for allegedly forcing his way onto the property and throwing the owner on the ground. The Supreme Court reversed the 4th Circuit's decision in the Andrew Fields case last summer and sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit. According to the federal lawsuit, officers smashed Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz's car window in January 2026.

What's New

This report includes additional context identifying the Department of Homeland Security as a United States federal executive department. This classification provides structural context for the agency involved in the lawsuit filed by Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz.