In the case of Alexander Haig v. Gladys Bissonette, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that federal officials could be sued for damages by individuals whose constitutional rights were violated while those officials were acting within their authority but outside of their jurisdiction. The case arose from a confrontation between American Indian Movement activists and FBI agents on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Reservation in 1975, where two FBI agents and one Native American activist died. Relatives of the deceased activist filed a lawsuit against then-Secretary of State Alexander Haig and other federal officials alleging violations to First Amendment rights (freedom of speech) and Fourth Amendment rights (protection against unreasonable searches). The court held that even high-ranking government officers can be held personally liable if they knowingly violate an individual’s constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Alexander Haig v. Gladys Bissonette, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case as moot was incorrect. He contended that there were still live issues in dispute and thus, it was inappropriate to declare it moot simply because some of the original plaintiffs had died or moved away from Pine Ridge Reservation where they originally protested against government actions. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness doctrine which allows courts to decide cases even if their specific circumstances have ceased but are likely to recur in future. According to him, this case met both criteria: protests could happen again at any time and given their spontaneous nature coupled with slow pace of litigation process; such disputes would always evade timely judicial review.