If you were thrown to the ground during a workplace raid, hit with a projectile at a protest, or handcuffed by agents who never told you why, the first question is usually the same. Can I do anything about this?
You can. The honest answer is that the rules for holding a federal agent accountable are different, and in several ways harder, than the rules for holding a city police officer accountable. Knowing which set of rules applies to your situation matters more than almost anything else, because the deadlines are short and one of them is unforgiving.
QUICK ANSWER: Yes, but the path is narrower than suing a city police officer. Today most claims against federal agents run through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which requires an administrative claim within two years before any lawsuit. California’s SB 747, the No Kings Act, would add a state court remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations. It passed the Legislature on August 27, 2026 and is awaiting action by the Governor.
Why federal agents are treated differently
When a Los Angeles police officer or an Orange County sheriff’s deputy violates your rights, you generally sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the federal civil rights statute, and often under California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act as well. Those tools exist because the officer acts under state law.
A federal agent does not act under state law. Section 1983 does not reach them. That single distinction is why cases involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol, the FBI, the DEA, or the U.S. Marshals follow a separate track.
The Federal Tort Claims Act is the main road today
The Federal Tort Claims Act, found at 28 U.S.C. sections 1346 and 2671 through 2680, lets you seek money damages from the United States for harm caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. You do not sue the individual agent. You sue the government that sent them.
The claim comes before the lawsuit
Before you can file anything in court, you must present an administrative claim to the agency involved. This is usually done on Standard Form 95. Under 28 U.S.C. section 2401(b) that claim has to be presented within two years of the injury, and it must state a “sum certain,” meaning a specific dollar figure. The agency then has six months to accept, deny, or sit on it. If it denies the claim or lets the six months run, you may file suit in federal district court.
Miss the two-year deadline and the case is over. Courts treat this requirement as jurisdictional, which means a judge has no power to excuse the delay no matter how sympathetic the facts are. Leave out the sum certain and courts have thrown out claims for that alone. This is the single most common way a strong case against federal agents dies before anyone looks at the merits.
The law enforcement proviso is what makes these cases possible
The Federal Tort Claims Act normally bars claims for intentional torts. There is a carve-out. Under 28 U.S.C. section 2680(h), when the conduct involves “investigative or law enforcement officers,” you may bring claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. Immigration and customs agents fall squarely within that definition, which is why an excessive force case against ICE or Border Patrol is usually pleaded as assault and battery against the United States.
What happened to Bivens claims
For decades the companion remedy was a Bivens claim, named for a 1971 Supreme Court decision allowing a constitutional damages suit directly against an individual federal officer. The Supreme Court has narrowed that remedy repeatedly, most sharply in Egbert v. Boule (2022). What remains is a narrow Fourth Amendment lane and very little else. Courts now routinely decline to extend Bivens into any “new context.”
That is the practical reason the Federal Tort Claims Act carries most of the weight in these cases, and the practical reason California legislators went looking for another answer.
SB 747, the No Kings Act
Senate Bill 747, authored by Senator Scott Wiener and known as the No Kings Act, would create a cause of action in California state court against federal officers who violate constitutional rights, including excessive force and false arrest.
Three features matter to someone who has been hurt:
- It would allow the case to be filed in state court rather than requiring federal court.
- It would not require the Federal Tort Claims Act administrative claim process first.
- It would not require proof of “threats, intimidation, or coercion,” which is the additional element the Bane Act demands.
The Assembly passed SB 747 by a vote of 57 to 19 and the Senate by 30 to 10. It reached the Governor on August 27, 2026, and reporting at the time indicated he must act on it by September 30, 2026, with the law taking effect immediately if signed.
Two cautions belong in the same breath. First, as of the date of this article the bill has not been signed, so it is not law and nothing here should be read as saying otherwise. Second, legislative staff and law enforcement groups have both said publicly that a state law reaching federal officers is likely to draw a federal court challenge. Nobody can responsibly predict how that turns out.
What to do now, whichever way SB 747 goes
The steps that protect a case do not depend on pending legislation.
- Write down what happened while it is fresh, including agency names, vehicle markings, badge or unit numbers, and the names of everyone present.
- Photograph injuries the same day and again several days later as bruising develops, and get medical treatment even if you feel able to tough it out.
- Save clothing, and do not wash it.
- Collect video. Ask bystanders, nearby businesses, and neighbors for footage right away, because most systems overwrite within days or weeks.
- Watch the calendar. The two-year federal administrative deadline is not the only clock. If any state or local officers took part in a joint operation, a separate six month California government claim deadline may apply to them, and it is much shorter.
Joint task forces are common in Southern California, and it is often unclear in the moment which agency an agent belongs to. That ambiguity is a reason to talk to a lawyer early rather than a reason to wait.
Frequently asked questions
Rarely, and it is difficult. After Egbert v. Boule, courts allow individual capacity constitutional claims against federal officers only in narrow circumstances. Most viable cases proceed against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act instead.
Two years from the date of injury to present the administrative claim, under 28 U.S.C. section 2401(b). After a denial you generally have six months to file suit in federal court.
It is the standard federal administrative claim form. It must identify the incident, the injuries, and a specific dollar amount, and it must be signed. A written notification containing the same information can also work, but the form is the safer route.
The Bane Act is a California statute aimed at interference with rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion. Whether and how it reaches federal officers is contested, which is part of what SB 747 was written to address.
No. As of the publication date of this article it had passed both houses of the Legislature and was awaiting the Governor’s action. Check the current status before relying on it.
Then two different sets of rules and two different deadlines apply at the same time. The California government claim deadline for the local agency is six months, which usually arrives long before the federal deadline.
An internal complaint is not a substitute for the administrative claim. Filing a complaint with an agency’s professional responsibility office does not preserve your right to sue.
Commonly broken bones, head injuries, eye injuries from kinetic impact projectiles, dog bites, and psychological harm. Every case is evaluated on its own facts, and no lawyer can tell you what a case is worth before reviewing the evidence.
If federal agents hurt you or someone in your family in Southern California, the Law Office of Jerry L. Steering offers consultations from our Newport Beach office. You can learn more about federal civil rights lawsuits or contact the firm at (949) 474-1849.
About the Author
Jerry L. Steering has represented people injured by law enforcement since 1984. He graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1984, was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia that year, and has been licensed in California since 1986 (State Bar No. 122509). His practice in Newport Beach is devoted to police misconduct, civil rights, and criminal defense throughout Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Kern counties.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it does not create an attorney client relationship. Deadlines in these cases are short and unforgiving, so speak with a lawyer promptly.
Sources
- 28 U.S.C. sections 1346, 2401(b), 2675(a), 2680(h), Federal Tort Claims Act
- Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
- California SB 747 (2025 to 2026 Regular Session), Senator Scott Wiener
- Office of Senator Scott Wiener, “California Passes Senator Wiener’s Bill Allowing People to Sue ICE, Border Patrol For Violating Constitutional Rights,” sd11.senate.ca.gov
- KQED, “California Senate Approves Bill Making It Easier to Sue ICE Agents”
- Advocate Magazine, “The FTCA: Suing the federal government for civil rights violations,” June 2026
- California Civil Code section 52.1 (Tom Bane Civil Rights Act)
- California Government Code section 911.2
Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.
