Facts
- Robert Boule owned and operated the “Smuggler’s Inn,” a bed-and-breakfast in Blaine, Washington, on property next to the U.S.–Canada border.
- Boule sometimes cooperated with federal agents regarding unlawful cross-border activity, and he also provided transportation and lodging to some noncitizens who crossed unlawfully.
- In 2014, Boule told U.S. Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert that a Turkish national was expected to arrive at the inn.
- Egbert followed the arriving vehicle to Boule’s property to check on the guest and investigate possible immigration-related activity.
- Boule alleged that, when Boule asked Egbert to leave, Egbert refused and used excessive force by throwing Boule against a vehicle and then to the ground.
- Egbert checked the guest’s documents and left after determining the paperwork appeared in order.
- Boule filed complaints with Border Patrol and pursued administrative relief, including an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), but Boule obtained no relief and Egbert was not disciplined.
- Boule alleged Egbert later retaliated for Boule’s complaints by reporting Boule’s “SMUGLER” license plate to state authorities and contacting the IRS, which led to a tax audit.
- Boule sued Egbert in federal court seeking damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents for (1) Fourth Amendment excessive force and (2) First Amendment retaliation.
- The district court declined to extend Bivens and entered judgment for Egbert.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and permitted both claims to proceed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
- Does Bivens provide an implied damages remedy for a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against a Border Patrol agent arising from immigration-related activity near the international border?
- Does Bivens provide an implied damages remedy for a First Amendment retaliation claim against a federal officer?
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held that the authority to imply a cause of action under Bivens did not extend to Boule’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against a Border Patrol agent in this setting.
- The Court held that Bivens does not extend to First Amendment retaliation claims.
- Applying its modern Bivens approach, the Court treated the case as presenting a new context and found multiple reasons for courts to refrain from creating a damages remedy, including the border-security setting and the existence of alternative remedial processes (such as agency complaint procedures and the FTCA), even if those processes did not provide the same relief as a Bivens action.
Legal Principles
- Bivens is a limited, disfavored implied damages remedy; courts generally should not create new damages actions for constitutional violations by federal officers.
- A claim arises in a “new context” when it differs in a meaningful way from the three settings in which the Supreme Court has recognized a Bivens remedy.
- When a case presents a new context, a court may not extend Bivens if there is any reason to think Congress, not the judiciary, should decide whether a damages remedy should exist.
- The presence of an alternative remedial structure—created by Congress or the Executive—counsels against a judicially created Bivens remedy even when the alternative does not provide complete relief to the plaintiff.
- Claims tied to immigration enforcement and activity near the border raise separation-of-powers and national-security concerns that weigh strongly against recognizing a judge-made damages remedy.
- The Supreme Court has not recognized, and declined here to recognize, a Bivens remedy for First Amendment retaliation.
Conclusion
In Egbert v. Boule, the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not extend Bivens to provide damages remedies for either (1) a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against a Border Patrol agent connected to immigration-related activity near the U.S.–Canada border or (2) a First Amendment retaliation claim, emphasizing that the creation of new damages actions against federal officers is for Congress to decide and that existing administrative and statutory processes are enough to foreclose judicial expansion.