CA9 on Bivens: Boule v. Egbert, Amended

Boule v. Egbert, amended 5-20-21

"The opinion filed on November 20, 2020, and reported at Boule v. Egbert, 980 F.3d 1309 (9th Cir. 2020), is amended, and the amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. ... We are asked to decide whether a Bivens damages remedy is available to a United States citizen plaintiff who contends that a border patrol agent, acting on the plaintiff’s property within the United States, violated his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. ... [W]e reverse the district court and hold that Boule may pursue a Bivens remedy for his First and Fourth Amendment claims. ... We conclude that Bivens remedies are available in the circumstances of this case, where a United States citizen claims that a border patrol agent violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force while carrying out official duties within the United States, and violated the First Amendment by engaging in retaliation entirely unconnected to his official duties. We reverse and remand for further proceedings."

[Hats off to Breean L. Beggs (argued), Paukert & Troppmann PLLC, Spokane; Gregory Donald Boos,W. Scott Railton, and Halley Carlson Fisher, Cascadia Cross-Border Law, Bellingham, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellant and Matt Adams (argued), Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, Washington; Mary Kenney, American Immigration Council, Washington, D.C.; Trina Realmuto, American Immigration Council, Brookline, Massachusetts; for Amici Curiae American Immigration Council and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project!]