Egbert v. Boule

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether a cause of action exists under Bivens for First Amendment retaliation claims. Whether a cause of action exists under Bivens for claims against federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions for allegedly violating a Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Action

In a 9–0 decision issued its decision on June 8, 2022, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the First Amendment retaliation claim and split 6–3 on the Fourth Amendment claim. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority that under Bivens, only Congress may authorize a damage remedy for either asserted First or Fourth Amendment violations for cases against federal agents. In the partial dissent, Sotomayor agreed that the alleged First Amendment violations could not go forward under Bivens, but argued that the Fourth Amendment claim should have been considered.

Facts/Syllabus

In 2014, the U.S. Border Patrol learned of a Turkish citizen that had arranged travel across the U.S.-Canadian border to an inn. When the guest arrived, Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert asked to speak with the Turkish citizen but was stopped by Robert Boule, who asked him to leave. Boule accused Egbert of unlawfully harassing him and later retaliated against him by reporting his business to the IRS. 

Importance of Case

The holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents does not extend to causes of action for either Boule's claims of First Amendment retaliation or Fourth Amendment excessive-force.