How SCOTUS Protects Bad Federal Officers
When bed-and-breakfast owner Robert Boule asked Border Patrol agents, who were questioning a guest, to leave his property, an agent pushed him to the ground.
Several recent Supreme Court decisions have made it nearly impossible to sue a federal officer for alleged violations of constitutional rights. Now the Court is weighing a new case, Egbert v. Boule, that could continue this sorry trend.
Robert Boule is the owner of a bed-and-breakfast in Washington state near the Canadian border. Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert sought to question one of Boule's guests, a Turkish national, about his immigration status. Boule told the agent to leave his property. Egbert refused, then allegedly shoved Boule against a car and pushed him to the ground, injuring his shoulder. After Boule complained to Egbert's superiors, the agent allegedly retaliated by asking the IRS to investigate Boule, who was audited.
Boule sued Egbert in federal court under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a 1971 decision in which the Supreme Court said federal officers can be held civilly liable for violating people's constitutional rights. Unfortunately, the Court has since narrowed Bivens to the point of practically overruling it.
In the 2017 case Ziglar v. Abbasi, for example, the justices said that when a Bivens claim arises in a context that is "different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court," the presiding judge must search for any "special factors counselling hesitation" and toss the case if he finds them. "If we have reason to pause before applying Bivens in a new context or to a new class of defendants," the Court emphasized in the 2020 case Hernandez v. Mesa, "we reject the request."
Boule sued Egbert for violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment (by refusing to leave Boule's property and using force against him) and the First Amendment (by retaliating against Boule's constitutionally protected criticism of the agent's actions). Boule won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which said any hesitancy about letting this Bivens claim proceed was "outweighed by compelling interests in favor of protecting United States citizens from unlawful activity by federal agents."
The Supreme Court is reviewing that decision, and its recent hostility toward recognizing new Bivens claims does not bode well for Boule, or anyone else interested in seeing rogue federal officers held civilly accountable. As 5th Circuit Judge Don Willett lamented in a similar case in 2021, the Supreme Court has so undermined Bivens that "redress for a federal officer's unconstitutional acts is either extremely limited or wholly nonexistent, allowing federal officials to operate in something resembling a Constitution-free zone."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why does anyone think courts exist to protect us from government? Courts are government.
This. ^ The judges know what side their bread is buttered on.
Once in a while you are correct. The major problem with “limited” government is that the limits are set by government employees — judges, legislators, president and governors and mayors, and of course burrocrats — all working together to preserve and expand government.
“Constitution free zone”. Is that what we’re calling America these days?
It started in the airports.
That worked so well they waited for an opportunity, and used the Communist Chinese Virus to spread it across the country. There are still pockets of ‘more free’ we call Free America, but the next election will determine the fate of the country.
The only part of the bill of rights not severely restricted (infringed) is the third.
The only part of the bill of rights not severely restricted (infringed) is the third.
Only because they haven’t found a need to… yet.
It also applies to within 100 miles of the border.
And 100 miles around any point of entry (international airports), covering most of the country.
In fairness, it started at the borders (in response to the misnamed War on Drugs). It huge growth spurt in airports, though.
If we’re being honest, yes.
Police reform should be all about limiting interactions between law enforcement and citizens to actual rights violations. This step alone would reduce police interactions significantly.
Indeed. It never ceases to amaze me how the people who shout the loudest for police reform also shout the loudest for more laws about more things.
I’ve come to believe that many people think laws are magic. Like they enforce themselves or something. That’s based upon their horrific reaction to laws being enforced by violent men.
Yeah I’ve seen that too. When a law is passed and the President signs it (with 47 different pens so they can be handed out as souvenirs) the law’s proponents dust their hands triumphantly “done and done!” as though a switch has been flipped.
We should ask ourselves on every law… is this law worth either a police officer’s or a citizen’s life? Ultimately every law is enforced with force. Force always has the potential to lead to armed conflict and that goes both ways.
You mean like a “no fly zones” aren’t magic?
Most certainly not. “No fly zone” is a euphemism for we are declaring war.
My favorite quote in regards to that is Pharaoh’s “So let it be written, so let it be done” (from memory, probably not exactly correct) in, I think, the movie with Charlton Heston as Moses and Yul Brynner as Pharaoh.
insert obligatory “SC is the government’s watchdog, not Ours.” here.
How about state charges for battery?