Egbert v. Boule

Supreme Court of the United States · 2022 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsBivensImplied causes of actionFourth AmendmentFirst AmendmentBivensnew contextspecial factors

Facts

Boule owned the Smuggler's Inn, a bed-and-breakfast whose property abutted the Canadian border, and Border Patrol agents were familiar with criminal activity associated with the property. After Boule told Agent Egbert that a Turkish national had scheduled transportation to the inn, Egbert followed one of Boule's vehicles into the driveway to check the guest's immigration status. On Boule's account, Egbert refused to leave, threw Boule against the vehicle and to the ground, then checked the guest's paperwork and left after finding everything in order. Boule later filed a grievance and an FTCA administrative claim, and he alleged Egbert retaliated by reporting Boule's license plate and prompting an IRS audit before Boule brought this Bivens suit.

Issue

Whether the Court should recognize a Bivens damages action against a Border Patrol agent for Boule's Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim and First Amendment retaliation claim. More specifically, the question was whether either claim could proceed under the Court's current framework for extending Bivens to new contexts.

Rule

Recognizing a Bivens cause of action is a disfavored judicial activity. When a plaintiff seeks a Bivens remedy, the court asks whether the claim arises in a new context and, if so, whether there is any reason to think Congress is better equipped than the Judiciary to create a damages remedy; even a single sound reason to defer to Congress forecloses relief. A court also may not fashion a Bivens remedy when Congress has provided, or authorized the Executive to provide, an alternative remedial structure.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Near Nogales, Arizona, Border Enforcement Agent Lucas Reed stopped on private ranch land and allegedly shoved ranch owner Elena Marquez while checking the immigration status of a passenger Reed suspected had recently crossed unlawfully. Marquez sues Reed for damages directly under the Fourth Amendment.

Should the federal court recognize a Bivens remedy?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the proper question is not whether this particular encounter seems conventional, but whether courts are competent to authorize damages actions against border-enforcement agents generally. Border and national security concerns are reason enough to pause, and even a single sound reason to defer to Congress forecloses a new Bivens remedy.