Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of the United States
March 2, 2022, Argued; June 8, 2022, Decided
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971), this Court authorized a damages action against federal officials for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. Over the past 42 years, however, we have declined 11 times to imply a similar cause of action for other alleged constitutional violations. See Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296, 103 S. Ct. 2362, 76 L. Ed. 2d 586 (1983); Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367, 103 S. Ct. 2404, 76 L. Ed. 2d 648 (1983); United States v. Stanley, 483 U. S. 669, 107 S. Ct. 3054, 97 L. Ed. 2d 550 (1987); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U. S. 412, 108 S. Ct. 2460, 101 L. Ed. 2d 370 (1988); FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U. S. 471, 114 S. Ct. 996, 127 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1994); Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 122 S. Ct. 515, 151 L. Ed. 2d 456 (2001); Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U. S. 537, 127 S. Ct. 2588, 168 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2007); *** v. Castaneda, 559 U. S. 799, 130 S. Ct. 1845, 176 L. Ed. 2d 703 (2010); Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U. S. 118, 132 S. Ct. 617, 181 L. Ed. 2d 606 (2012); Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 198 L. Ed. 2d 290 (2017); Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U. S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 735, 206 L. Ed. 2d 29 (2020). Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals permitted not one, but two constitutional damages actions to proceed against a U. S. Border Patrol agent: a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim. Because our cases have made clear that, in all but the most unusual circumstances, [*8] prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the courts, we reverse.
Blaine, Washington, is the last town in the United States along U. S. Interstate Highway 5 before reaching the Canadian border. Respondent Robert Boule is a longtime Blaine resident. The rear of his property abuts the Canadian border at “0 Avenue,” a Canadian street. Boule’s property line actually extends five feet into Canada. Several years ago, Boule placed a line of small stones on his property to mark the international boundary. As shown below, any person could easily enter the United States or Canada through or near Boule’s property. See App. 100.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. LEXIS 2829 *
ERIK EGBERT, PETITIONER v. ROBERT BOULE
Notice: The pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version.
Prior History: [*1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Boule v. Egbert, 998 F.3d 370, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 42293 (9th Cir. Wash., May 20, 2021)
Disposition: 998 F. 3d 370, reversed.
border, cause of action, courts, Patrol, CBP, special factor, action for damages, hesitation, guest, cases, national security, national-security, damages, costs and benefits, foreclose, reasons, remedies, marks, weigh, alternative remedy, retaliation claim, circumstances, counseled, constitutional violation, damages remedy, immigration, retaliation, violations, extending, quotation
Civil Rights Law, Protection of Rights, Implied Causes of Action, Governments, Federal Government, Claims By & Against, Domestic Security, Immigration Law, Enforcement of Immigration Laws, Border Procedures, Immigration Officers, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Freedoms, Freedom of Speech, Scope, Civil Procedure, Remedies, Damages, Monetary Damages