Egbert v. Boule

Last updated

Egbert v. Boule
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 2, 2022
Decided June 8, 2022
Full case nameErik Egbert v. Robert Boule
Docket no. 21-147
Citations596 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Holding
The holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents does not extend to causes of action for either Boule's claims of First Amendment retaliation or Fourth Amendment excessive-force.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett
ConcurrenceGorsuch (in judgment)
Concur/dissentSotomayor, joined by Breyer, Kagan

Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case related to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents .

Contents

Background

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents was a 1971 Supreme Court case that allowed for private citizens to seek monetary damages from federal agents when their rights were violated. However, the Bivens decision was based on a limited application of the Fourth Amendment to protect from illegal search and seizure, and since Bivens was decided, the Supreme Court has generally denied extending that decision to cover other causes of actions on the basis that only Congress could otherwise establish a pathway for such remedies. [1]

Robert Boule is the owner of "Smuggler's Inn", a bed-and-breakfast in Blaine, Washington, near the Canada–United States border. Part of Boule's property extended into Canada, which allowed for illegal crossing of the border as well as a route for contraband. That made the United States Border Patrol keep close watch on the hotel, and Boule often worked with Border Patrol agents to notify them when persons of interest were staying at his inn to allow them to be detained by the agents.

In 2014, the Border Patrol became aware of a Turkish person that had arranged travel to the inn. When the guest arrived at the inn, the agent Erik Egbert approached the inn and looked to speak with the individual. Boule stopped Egbert and asked him to leave. Boule alleged that Egbert had used a show of force and unlawfully harassed him during the visit to the inn and later retaliated against him by reporting him to the Internal Revenue Service. The district court ruled for Egbert and found that the Supreme Court had held that under the prior Supreme Court case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, causes of action that would allow citizens to sue federal agents for violation of their rights could not be extended to First Amendment retaliation claims or Fourth Amendment claims touching on immigration issues. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Twelve judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, in opinions authored by Judges John B. Owens, Daniel Bress, and Patrick J. Bumatay.

Boule subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari . [2]

Supreme Court

Certiorari was granted in the case on November 5, 2021, limited to the first two questions presented.[ clarification needed ] The Court declined to consider the question of whether Bivens should be completely overruled.

The Court issued its decision on June 8, 2022. In a 9–0 decision, the court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the First Amendment retaliation claim. It split 6–3 on the Fourth Amendment claim. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority. Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in the judgment and called for Bivens to be overruled in its entirety. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in part (as to the First Amendment claim) and dissenting in part (as to the Fourth Amendment claim). Thomas wrote that under Bivens, only Congress could authorize a damage remedy for either asserted First or Fourth Amendment violations for cases against federal agents, and cautioned from allowing the court to expand beyond the limited cases that Bivens allowed for. [3] In the partial dissent, Sotomayor agreed that the alleged First Amendment violations could not go forward under Bivens, but argued that the Fourth Amendment claim should have been considered. [1]

Subsequent developments

The decision reinforces the immunity of federal officers from lawsuits related to claims of violations of constitutional rights. [4] [5] [6]

Related Research Articles

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.

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect 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.

William Alan Fletcher is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President Bill Clinton, Fletcher was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1998. Fletcher taught at the UC Berkeley School of Law from 1977 to 1998.

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.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), was the case in which the Supreme Court determined it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a roving patrol car to stop a vehicle solely on the basis of the driver appearing to be of Mexican descent. A roving patrol car must have articulable facts that allow for an officer to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying illegal aliens beyond their ethnicity. The Court handed down a 9–0 decision that affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling in the case.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

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.

Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to justify a traffic stop. The Court delivered its ruling on December 15, 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim brought under the First Amendment, unless officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest.

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with compensation for private property owners when the use of that property is taken from them by state or local governments, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The immediate question asks if private land owners must exhaust all state-offered venues for mediation before seeking action in the federal courts. The case specifically addresses the Court's prior decision from the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which had previously established that all state court venues must be exhausted first, but which has since resulted in several split decisions among circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2019 to overturn part of Williamson County that required state venue action be taken first, allowing taking-compensation cases to be brought directly to federal court.

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases. After first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court held that the conduct of the police officers involved in the case did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

United States v. Vaello Madero, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the constitutionality of the exclusion of United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico from the Supplemental Security Income program. In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled that as Congress had been granted broad oversight of United States territories by Article Four of the United States Constitution, the exclusion of the territories by Congress from programs like Supplemental Security Income did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

Merrill v. Milligan is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

References

  1. 1 2 Sneed, Tierney; De Vogue, Ariana (June 8, 2022). "Supreme Court limits excessive force claims against Border Patrol agents". CNN . Retrieved June 8, 2022.
  2. ↑ Howe, Amy (November 5, 2021). "Justices add four new cases to their docket, including Bivens case, but won't reconsider Bivens itself". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved December 2, 2021.
  3. ↑ Fritze, John (June 8, 2022). "Supreme Court rules against man who sued Customs agent for excessive force". USA Today . Retrieved June 8, 2022.
  4. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (June 8, 2022). "The Supreme Court gives lawsuit immunity to Border Patrol agents who violate the Constitution". Vox. Retrieved June 8, 2022.
  5. ↑ Ford, Matt (June 8, 2022). "The Supreme Court Keeps Chipping Away at Your Constitutional Rights". The New Republic. Retrieved June 8, 2022.
  6. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 8, 2022). "Supreme Court Sides With Border Agent Accused of Using Excessive Force". The New York Times. Retrieved June 8, 2022.
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.