Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Wilkie v. Robbins

Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawBivensRICOHobbs ActTakings-related retaliationBivensspecial factorsalternative remedies

Facts

Robbins bought and operated the High Island Ranch after the Bureau of Land Management failed to record an easement previously granted by the seller, so Robbins took title free of that easement under Wyoming law. After discovering the loss, BLM officials demanded that Robbins grant a replacement easement and, according to Robbins, undertook a years-long campaign of harassment and intimidation when he refused. The alleged conduct included trespass, administrative charges, permit changes and cancellations, criminal charges, surveillance, and other pressure connected to BLM's effort to obtain the easement. Robbins claimed these acts collectively violated the Constitution and also amounted to extortion actionable through RICO.

Issue

Whether a landowner may obtain a new Bivens damages remedy against federal officials for allegedly retaliating against his exercise of property rights by pressuring him to grant an easement, despite the existence of various administrative, judicial, and tort remedies. Whether the same conduct can support a civil RICO claim predicated on extortion under the Hobbs Act or state-law extortion theories when the property was sought solely for the Government's benefit.

Rule

In deciding whether to recognize a new Bivens action, a court asks first whether alternative existing processes for protecting the interest provide a convincing reason to refrain from creating a new damages remedy, and second whether special factors counsel hesitation before authorizing a new kind of federal litigation. Extortion under the Hobbs Act, as informed by the common law meaning incorporated by Congress, targets public corruption involving the taking of money or property not due to an official for private gain, and does not extend to government officials' efforts to obtain property solely for the benefit of the Government.

🔒

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.

Nina Torres owns a rafting lodge outside Durango, Colorado. After she refuses to grant a free riverside access strip to a federal land office, agency employees issue permit violations, enter the property without permission, and downgrade one of her commercial-use permits; Nina could pursue state trespass claims, contest the citations administratively, and seek APA review of the final permit decision, but instead sues the employees for damages under the Constitution based on the overall pressure campaign.

Should a federal court most likely recognize a new damages action against the employees?

Explanation. The majority used the standard two-step Bivens inquiry. At step one, it treated available state tort claims, administrative contests, and APA review as relevant alternative existing processes, even though they formed only a patchwork rather than a complete remedial scheme. In a case involving pressure to obtain property for the Government, that patchwork is a reason to refrain from creating a new freestanding damages action.