Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

Last updated

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 12, 1971
Decided June 21, 1971
Full case nameWebster Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
Citations403 U.S. 388 ( more )
91 S. Ct. 1999; 29 L. Ed. 2d 619; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 23
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorDismissed, 276 F. Supp. 12 (E.D.N.Y. 1967); affirmed, 409 F.2d 718 (2d Cir. 1969)
SubsequentOn remand, reversed, 456 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir. 1972)
Holding
Individuals have an implied cause of action against federal government officials who have violated their constitutional rights. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Douglas, Stewart, White, Marshall
ConcurrenceHarlan (in judgment)
DissentBurger
DissentBlack
DissentBlackmun
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The victim of such a deprivation could sue for the violation of the Fourth Amendment itself despite the lack of any federal statute authorizing such a suit. The existence of a remedy for the violation was implied by the importance of the right violated.

Contents

The case was understood to create a cause of action against the federal government similar to the one in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the states. However, the Supreme Court has sharply limited new Bivens claims.

The Supreme Court has upheld Bivens claims only three times: in Bivens (1971), Davis v. Passman (1979), and Carlson v. Green (1980). Under Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) and Egbert v. Boule (2022), any claim that is not highly similar to the facts in Bivens (excessive force during arrest), Davis (sex discrimination in federal employment), or Carlson (inadequate care in prison) is a "new context" to which Bivens will not be extended if "there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy."

Background

Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) agents searched the Brooklyn home of the plaintiff, Webster Bivens, and arrested him without a warrant. Drug charges were filed but were later dismissed by a US commissioner (now called magistrate judge). Bivens filed a lawsuit alleging the violation of his Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The government claimed that the violation allowed for only a state law claim for invasion of privacy and that the Fourth Amendment provides no cause of action but only a rebuttable defense for the FBN agents.

The district court agreed and dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for Bivens's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on that secondary issue of whether a plaintiff can bring a claim in federal court based solely on an alleged violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Bivens was represented pro bono by Stephen A. Grant. [1]

Decision

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Brennan, laid down a rule that it will infer a private right of action for monetary damages where no other federal remedy is provided for the vindication of a constitutional right, based on the principle that "for every wrong, there is a remedy". The court reasoned based upon a presumption that where there is a violation of a right, the plaintiff can recover whatever he could recover under any civil action, unless Congress has expressly curtailed that right of recovery, or there exist some "special factors counseling hesitation".

Concurrence

Justice Harlan voted with the majority to reverse the lower court but also wrote a separate concurring opinion.

For the reasons set forth below, I am of the opinion that federal courts do have the power to award damages for violation of 'constitutionally protected interests' and I agree with the Court that a traditional judicial remedy such as damages is appropriate to the vindication of the personal interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.[ citation needed ]

Harlan particularly emphasized the special importance of constitutional rights. He presented that it was well-settled, even undeniable, that a suit for injunction based on a constitutional right had been long recognized in the Federal courts. However, a suit for damages should be as or more acceptable.

Dissents

Dissenting opinions were written by Chief Justice Burger and by Justices Black and Blackmun.

Chief Justice Burger's dissent asserted that the decision was legislating an area that should be left to Congress. Justice Black basically agreed with Justice Burger and was worried about the growing docket. Justice Blackmun went a step further, saying the decision "opens the door for another avalanche of new federal cases".

Subsequent case law

In Davis v. Passman , 442 U.S. 228 (1979), the Supreme Court upheld a Fifth Circuit opinion that held that even though there existed "an explicit congressional prohibition against judicial remedies for those in petitioner's position", the Court declined to infer that Congress also sought to foreclose an alternative remedy directly under the Fifth Amendment. [2]

In Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14 (1980), the court held that a damages remedy would be available despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right, unless: (1) Congress had provided an alternative remedy which it "explicitly declared to be a substitute for recovery directly under the Constitution"; or (2) the defendant could demonstrate any "special factors counseling hesitation". [3]

In Bush v. Lucas , 462 U.S. 367 (1983), the Court refrained from implying a Bivens remedy due to the availability of alternative remedies for the first time. [3]

In FDIC v. Meyer , 510 U.S. 471 (1994), and Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko , 534 U.S. 61 (2001), [4] the court held that the fundamental logic supporting Bivens was to deter constitutional violations by individual officers, not federal agencies. [5]

In Wilkie v. Robbins , 551 U.S. 537 (2007), the court held that the difficulty inherent in "defining limits to legitimate zeal on the public's behalf in situations where hard bargaining is to be expected" was a "special factor" that counseled against the availability of a Bivens remedy. [6]

In Minneci v. Pollard , 565 U.S. 118 (2012), the court denied a Bivens action for Eighth Amendment violations committed by employees of a private prison because "state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions … that provide both significant deterrence and compensation", despite acknowledging that these officials were "act[ing] under color of federal law". [7] [8]

Subsequent developments

Scholarship on Bivens success rate

According to Alexander A. Reinert, law professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University, many attorneys assumed Bivens claims were far less successful than other civil rights litigation. [9] However, Reinert's research showed outcomes for plaintiffs more promising than had been assumed: "Depending on the procedural posture, presence of counsel, and type of case," success ranged from "16% to more than 40%," and that "when Bivens claims fail, it very rarely is because of the qualified immunity defense." [10] [11]

Egbert v. Boule

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), in November 2021, which was expected to review extensions of Bivens related remedies. The case involved a lawsuit filed by Robert Boule, the owner of an inn at the U.S.-Canada border against U.S. Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert related to a 2014 incident. In the incident, after Boule asked Egbert to leave his property when Egbert had approached a Turkish man about his immigration status, Egbert pushed Boule to the ground. Boule complained to the Border Patrol, which in turn led Egbert to prompt the IRS to investigate Boule. Boule claimed his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated under Bivens. The district court found against Boule asserting his claims were an inappropriate extension of Bivens, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. [12]

In the 6-3 decision in Egbert v. Boule, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the authority of the court to find a course of action under Bivens does not extend to Robert Boule claim of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and his First Amendment retaliation claim. [13] [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A cause of action or right of action, in law, is a set of facts sufficient to justify suing to obtain money or property, or to justify the enforcement of a legal right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit. The legal document which carries a claim is often called a 'statement of claim' in English law, or a 'complaint' in U.S. federal practice and in many U.S. states. It can be any communication notifying the party to whom it is addressed of an alleged fault which resulted in damages, often expressed in amount of money the receiving party should pay/reimburse.

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle of federal constitutional law that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from lawsuits for damages unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is comparable to sovereign immunity, though it protects government employees rather than the government itself. It is less strict than absolute immunity, which protects officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.

Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), was a case in which Justice William J. Brennan writing for a unanimous United States Supreme Court articulated a four factor test for federal courts to apply when deciding whether the implication doctrine allows a cause of action to be inferred from a federal statute that does not clearly state a civil remedy.

Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (1990), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an action by an employee for a breach of a labor union's duty of fair representation entitled him to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

Dennis Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was "narrowly targeted" at "sex-based overgeneralization" and was thus a "valid exercise of [congressional] power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States wherein the constitutionality of New York's Uniform Commercial Code provision, which allows a warehouse to enforce a lien upon repossessed goods by selling said goods, was challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the state-allowed re-sale provision did not constitute state action, and thus, the plaintiff did not possess a colorable federal due process claim.

Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court found that implied damages actions first recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents should not be extended to allow recovery against a private corporation operating a halfway house under contract with the Bureau of Prisons.

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the qualified immunity of a police officer to a civil rights case brought through a Bivens action.

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined, by a vote of 4–2, that non-U.S. citizens detained in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot recover monetary damages from high level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement. The case was consolidated with Hastey v. Abbasi, and Ashcroft v. Abbasi. It was argued on January 18, 2017.

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet. Further, the Court held that government officials are not liable for the actions of their subordinates without evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity. At issue was whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, were entitled to qualified immunity against an allegation that they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against Muslim men detained after the September 11 attacks. The decision also "transformed civil litigation in the federal courts" by making it much easier for courts to dismiss individuals' suits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the scope of qualified immunity for government officials working in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Specifically, the Supreme Court held that BLM employees could not be liable for an alleged retaliation claim against Robbins, a farm owner, because other avenues for relief were available. Though these workers may have been tough in negotiations with Robbins over access over his land, none of that rose to the level of a constitutional violation.

Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), often shortened to Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision arising from a fired teacher's lawsuit against his former employer, the Mount Healthy City Schools. The Court considered three issues: whether federal-question jurisdiction existed in the case, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal lawsuits against school districts, and whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevented the district, as a government agency, from firing or otherwise disciplining an employee for constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern where the same action might have taken place for other, unprotected activities. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion.

Hernandez v. Mesa was a pair of United States Supreme Court cases in which the court held that the precedent established under the 1971 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents decision did not extend to claims based on cross-border shootings.

Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving legal remedies that could be sought by litigants against federal officials for violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. In a unanimous decision issued December 10, 2020, the court ruled that the Act allowed for litigants to seek not only injunctive relief but also monetary damages.

Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court declined to extend Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.

References

  1. ↑ Pfander, James (January 1, 2009). "The Story of Bivens v. Six Unknown-Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics". Faculty Working Papers.
  2. ↑ Frampton 2012, p. 1716.
  3. 1 2 Frampton 2012, p. 1717.
  4. ↑ Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko , 534 U.S. 61 (2001)
  5. ↑ Frampton 2012, pp. 1718–1719.
  6. ↑ Frampton 2012, pp. 1719–1720.
  7. ↑ Frampton 2012, p. 1713.
  8. ↑ Frampton 2012, p. 1722.
  9. ↑ Reinert 2010, p. 827.
  10. ↑ Reinert 2010, p. 813.
  11. ↑ Reinert 2010, p. 817.
  12. ↑ Howe, Amy (November 5, 2021). "Justices add four new cases to their docket, including Bivens case, but won't reconsider Bivens itself". SCOTUSBlog . Retrieved November 8, 2021.
  13. ↑ "Egbert v. Boule" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States . June 8, 2022.
  14. ↑ "Egbert v. Boule". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 13, 2022.
Sources
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.