Plain-English summary
Court holds no new Bivens causes of action for First Amendment retaliation or for Fourth Amendment claims against border
In Egbert v. Boule (2022), the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may not create a new Bivens cause of action for a First Amendment retaliation claim or for a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against a federal officer performing immigration-related duties. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and limited Bivens to previously recognized contexts.
Why this matters
The ruling narrows the circumstances in which people can sue federal officers for constitutional violations in federal court for money damages. It is especially significant for cases involving immigration and border enforcement, where courts may be less willing to imply new causes of action against federal agents. The decision reinforces that creating new monetary remedies for federal-actor constitutional harms is primarily Congress’s role.
Who may feel it
- People who allege constitutional violations by federal officers (especially Border Patrol and immigration enforcement)
- Immigrants and noncitizens at or near the border
- Victims seeking money damages for alleged First Amendment retaliation or Fourth Amendment excessive force by federal law
Key questions
- Should courts recognize a Bivens cause of action for First Amendment retaliation claims against federal officers?