Egbert v. Boule

Robert Boule operated the Smuggler’s Inn in Washington State near the Canadian border and occasionally cooperated with border patrol. In 2014, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert came to investigate a guest. A confrontation ensued when Boule asked for a warrant, and Egbert allegedly shoved Boule to the ground. Boule further claimed that Egbert retaliated against his complaints by prompting a state licensing review and an IRS audit of his business. Boule sued Egbert under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, seeking damages for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and First Amendment retaliation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and issued its decision on June 8, 2022.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and declined to extend Bivens remedies to either the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim or the First Amendment retaliation claim against Border Patrol agents, ruling that special factors warranted judicial restraint in this new context.

Whether a Bivens implied cause of action for damages should be extended to new contexts involving a Border Patrol agent’s alleged excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and alleged retaliation under the First Amendment.

The ruling significantly curtailed the availability of Bivens remedies, further limiting the ability of individuals to seek damages from federal officers for constitutional violations. It reinforced the judiciary’s reluctance to imply causes of action without congressional authorization and had a chilling effect on accountability for border enforcement personnel and other federal law enforcement officers.