Latest news with #Bivens
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules prison inmate cannot sue federal officers for alleged assault
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a federal prison inmate cannot sue corrections officers for an alleged assault in which he was punched, kicked and had his face slammed into a wall. The loss for inmate Andrew Fields is the latest setback for plaintiffs seeking to hold federal officials accountable for constitutional violations. Although the Supreme Court allowed such claims in a 1971 ruling called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, it has since changed course and made it almost impossible to do so in most situations. The unsigned ruling, which had no dissents, said that if Fields' claim was allowed to move forward, it "could have negative systemic consequences for prison officials." Fields has other ways of vindicating his rights, the court added. Fields, 53, had sought to bring a "Bivens claim" arising from the 2021 incident at a federal prison in Lee County, Virginia. He is now at a different prison in Florida. The facts are disputed, with officers saying he initially assaulted them, which he denies. Fields, serving a lengthy sentence for drugs and gun offenses, alleges that the incident began when he went to lunch without bringing a required movement pass. While being moved to a special housing unit, Fields says officers punched him in the face and stomped on him. Then, once he was secured in the unit and restrained, the officers shoved his face into the wall, slammed a security shield into his back, and again punched him and kneed him in the groin, he alleges. A federal judge threw out Fields' lawsuit, which he filed without the help of a lawyer. But in a 2024 ruling, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it, saying he could bring a claim under the Constitution's 8th Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment in the prison context. The Supreme Court has over several decades shown a reluctance to allow Bivens claims. In the most recent decision, the court in 2022 said Border Patrol agents could not be sued. In the 12 months after that ruling, lower courts cited it 228 times in a variety of cases against all kinds of federal officials, an NBC News investigation found. In 195 of those cases, constitutional claims were dismissed. Congress has never enacted legislation that would specifically allow federal officials to be sued individually for constitutional violations, even though it allows similar claims to be brought against state and local officials. In fact, the appeals court noted that there is "little doubt that Fields would have a viable ... claim against prison officials if he had been incarcerated at a state prison." Legislation in Congress that would codify Bivens claims has stalled. This article was originally published on
The Hill
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court rejects inmate's plea for damages over excessive force claims
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a Virginia inmate cannot sue prison officials for damages over claims they used excessive force in breach of his 8th Amendment rights. It's the justices' latest rejection of so-called Bivens claims, which let people sue federal officials in their individual capacity for monetary damages over constitutional rights violations. 'For the past 45 years, this Court has consistently declined to extend Bivens to new contexts,' the justices wrote in an unsigned opinion. 'We do the same here.' The justices sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit for further proceedings, turning down a chance to confront the court's 1971 decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. The case established an implied right to seek a remedy for constitutional violations against individual federal officers despite no law authorizing such a suit, and the high court has repeatedly signaled interest in overturning it. The appeal to the justices came from prison officials facing personal liability in a series of violent assaults alleged by a Virginia inmate. The inmate, Andrew Fields, claimed several officers repeatedly 'kicked and punched' him, including with steel-toed boots, and 'rammed' his head with a police shield and into a wall. He said he was then denied access to the prison's administrative remedy program. Fields sued the individual officers in 2022 but a district court dismissed his claims, finding no Bivens remedy for excessive force. However, a split U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision, finding the 'rare' situation — the severe abuse and intentional denial of administrative relief — warranted Bivens relief. The officers asked the court to consider whether Bivens action extends to excessive force claims under the Eighth Amendment but also asked them to 'reconsider the premise' of Bivens altogether. The case could have acted as a vehicle to overturn the precedent. 'The importance of this ruling is indisputable,' the officers wrote in their petition to the court. The court's 1971 decision let a Brooklyn man seek damages against individual federal narcotics agents for violating his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Over the next decade, the court extended Bivens actions to employment-discrimination claims under the Fifth Amendment and cruel and unusual punishment claims alleging inadequate medical care in prison under the Eighth Amendment. However, since 1983, the court has jettisoned Bivens claims, declining to extend the remedy to other alleged constitutional violations and instead suggesting Congress should make such decisions. Most recently, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a majority opinion that the claims aren't valid 'in all but the most unusual circumstances.' 'The Court's unwillingness to infer new Bivens claims accords with its broader repudiation of the whole project of judicially inferring causes of action that Congress did not create,' the officers' petition reads. The solicitor general's office asked the court to summarily reverse the lower court. In recent months, several prominent Bivens claims have been filed against federal officials. Five Proud Boys leaders convicted over the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack sued the Justice Department and individual FBI agents for $100 million over their prosecution earlier this month. Three of their claims are Bivens actions. Before that, Newark, N.J., Mayor Ras Baraka (D) sued interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba personally over his arrest last month outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility.
NBC News
30-06-2025
- NBC News
Supreme Court rules prison inmate cannot sue federal officers for alleged assault
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a federal prison inmate cannot sue corrections officers for an alleged assault in which he was punched, kicked and had his face slammed into a wall. The loss for inmate Andrew Fields marks the latest setback for plaintiffs seeking to hold federal officials accountable for constitutional violations. Although the Supreme Court allowed such claims in a 1971 ruling called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, it has since changed course and made it almost impossible to do so in most situations. The unsigned ruling, which had no dissents, said that if Fields' claim was allowed to move forward, it "could have negative systemic consequences for prison officials." Fields has other ways of vindicating his rights, the court added. Fields, 53, had sought to bring a "Bivens claim" arising from the 2021 incident at a federal prison in Lee County, Virginia. He is now at a different prison in Florida. The facts are disputed, with officers saying he initially assaulted them, which he denies. Fields, serving a lengthy sentence for drugs and gun offenses, alleges that the incident began when he went to lunch without bringing a required movement pass. While being moved to a special housing unit, Fields says officers punched him in the face and stomped on him. Then, once he was secured in the unit and restrained, the officers shoved his face into the wall, slammed a security shield into his back, and again punched him and kneed him in the groin, he alleges. A federal judge threw out Fields' lawsuit, which he filed without the help of a lawyer. But in a 2024 ruling, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it, saying he could bring a claim under the Constitution's 8th Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment in the prison context. The Supreme Court has over several decades shown a reluctance to allow Bivens claims. In the most recent decision, the court in 2022 said Border Patrol agents could not be sued. In the 12 months after that ruling, lower courts cited it 228 times in a variety of cases against all kinds of federal officials, an NBC News investigation found. In 195 of those cases, constitutional claims were dismissed. Congress has never enacted legislation that would specifically allow federal officials to be sued individually for constitutional violations, even though it allows similar claims to be brought against state and local officials. In fact, the appeals court noted that there is "little doubt that Fields would have a viable ... claim against prison officials if he had been incarcerated at a state prison."
Vox
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Vox
How the Supreme Court paved the way for ICE's lawlessness
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Last week, federal agents arrested Brad Lander, a Democrat running for mayor of New York City and the city's incumbent comptroller, after Lander linked arms with an immigrant the agents sought to detain and asked to see a warrant. Last month, federal officials also arrested Newark's Democratic Mayor Ras Baraka while Baraka was protesting at a detention facility for immigrants. A federal law permits sitting members of Congress to enter federal immigration facilities as part of their oversight responsibilities. That didn't stop the Trump administration from indicting Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who was at the same protest as Baraka. Federal officers also detained and handcuffed Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) after he tried to ask Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem questions at a press conference. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. These arrests are part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to step up deportations, and to intimidate protesters who object. Most of these incidents are recent enough that the courts have not had time to sort through what happened and determine whether anyone's constitutional rights were violated. But one thing is all but certain: even if it turns out that federal law enforcement officers flagrantly and deliberately targeted protesters or elected officials, violating the Constitution's First or Fourth Amendment, nothing will happen to those officers. Related The Supreme Court just held that a border guard who shot a child will face no consequences Both of these cases are part of the Republican justices' crusade against an older Supreme Court decision known as Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971). Bivens held that federal law enforcement officers who violate the Fourth Amendment — which protects against 'unreasonable searches and seizures,' among other things — may be sued for that violation. Significantly, Bivens ruled that a victorious plaintiff in such a case 'is entitled to recover money damages for any injuries he has suffered as a result of the agents' violation of the Amendment.' So officers faced very real consequences if they violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court's current majority, however, appears determined to destroy Bivens. Hernández and Egbert didn't explicitly overrule Bivens, but they ground down that decision to the point that it has little, if any, remaining force. And the Court appears to be laying the groundwork for a decision eliminating Bivens suits altogether. Significantly, Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in Hernández warned that 'it is doubtful that we would have reached the same result' if Bivens were decided today. That means that individuals who are unconstitutionally arrested by federal officers, or who face similar violations of their rights, will generally have no recourse against those officers. And that's likely to embolden the worst officers to violate the Constitution. Bivens, explained The Constitution places several restrictions on law enforcement, including the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable arrests and excessive force. But it is silent on what can be done when an officer violates these restrictions. Bivens, however, held that a right to sue federal officers is implicit in the Constitution itself. An officer who acts unlawfully 'in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own.' And so it follows, Bivens explained, that there must be a meaningful remedy to ensure that officers do not abuse this power. In fairness, the Supreme Court started limiting Bivens suits not long after that case was handed down. Shortly after Bivens was decided, President Richard Nixon replaced two justices, creating a new majority on the Court that was more favorable to law enforcement. But the Court only recently signaled that it intends to destroy Bivens altogether. In Egbert, the Court's Republican majority declared that courts must reject Bivens suits if there is 'any rational reason (even one)' to do so. Even a minor factual discrepancy between a new case and Bivens, such as the fact that the officers who violated the Constitution belong to a different agency than the officers in Bivens, is frequently enough to defeat a Bivens suit. President Donald Trump took office on twin promises to crack down on both undocumented immigrants and his perceived enemies — 'I am your retribution,' he told supporters in 2023 — and it's not hard to see how decisions like Egbert and Hernández enable him to do so. Related The Supreme Court gives lawsuit immunity to Border Patrol agents who violate the Constitution The Republican justices argue that nullifying Bivens is necessary to restore a more traditional vision of 'the Constitution's separation of legislative and judicial power.' The Supreme Court, under this vision of the separation of powers, may not determine that a right to sue federal officers is implicit in the Constitution. This right, according to Alito, must come from an explicit act of Congress. Alito's historical claim, that Bivens departed from a traditional understanding of the role of Congress and the courts, is somewhat dubious; the courts permitted at least some suits against federal officials who break the law for most of American history. In Little v. Barreme (1804), for example, the Supreme Court held that a Navy officer who unlawfully seized a neutral ship 'must pay such damages as are legally awarded against him.' More recently, in Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949), the Court declared that 'the principle that an agent is liable for his own torts 'is an ancient one, and applies even to certain acts of public officers or public instrumentalities.'' Hernández's call for granting immunity to federal officials would also have more credibility if the Republican justices hadn't recently ruled that Trump has broad immunity from prosecution if he uses the powers of the presidency to commit crimes. This concept of presidential immunity appears nowhere in the Constitution, and it certainly has no place in American legal tradition — among other things, why would President Gerald Ford have pardoned former President Richard Nixon for crimes Nixon committed in office, if Nixon were immune from prosecution?
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proud Boys' lawsuit is legally unsound — but DOJ will likely just surrender
The $100 million lawsuit filed by leaders of the far-right militant group the Proud Boys is legally unsound — but it has an excellent chance of success. The plaintiffs — Henry 'Enrique' Tarrio and four others — had been found guilty of seditious conspiracy and other crimes arising from their roles in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that interfered with the transition of power following Joe Biden's victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 election. The lawsuit's excellent chance of a successful outcome for Tarrio and his co-defendants-turned-co-plaintiffs rests entirely on the current Justice Department's will to defend itself, which seems non-existent judging by DOJ's recent capitulation in the wrongful death case brought by the estate of Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter shot and killed while trying to breach the House Speaker's Lobby on Jan. 6. The Babbitt case appeared weak. An investigation by the U.S. Capitol Police found that the officer had acted lawfully in shooting Babbitt, and a joint investigation by the D.C. police department and DOJ found no evidence that the officer had done anything other than act in self-defense of himself and members of Congress — who were actively being evacuated in the face of the Capitol attack at the time Babbitt climbed over a barricade and through a broken glass window to get into the Speaker's Lobby. The U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. and the DOJ's Civil Rights Section jointly decided no criminal charges against the officer were warranted. Nevertheless, the Trump DOJ paid Babbitt's estate $5 million to settle. The Proud Boys case looks even weaker. Tarrio and the other plaintiffs are essentially re-arguing defenses they made at their trials: Their constitutional rights were violated under various theories, including due process, the right to a speedy trial and claims of unreasonable search and seizures. But one problem for them is these defenses were all rejected at trial and they were convicted and sentenced for their crimes. Bringing a civil suit for a wrongful prosecution in which the defendant(s) were convicted would be nearly impossible without that conviction being overturned on appeal. The other problem is that their case is brought primarily upon the so-called Bivens doctrine, which has fallen extremely out of favor with the courts. The doctrine arose from a 1971 Supreme Court case allowing plaintiff Webster Bivens to seek damages against federal agents for violating his Fourth Amendment rights in an illegal search and arrest. But since 1971, the Supreme Court has repeatedly denied Bivens as a remedy and federal trial courts — and appeals courts — have dismissed hundreds of lawsuits based on Bivens, which had led to the conclusion that the Bivens remedy is nearly dead. Professor Dennis Fan, a former DOJ civil attorney, told The Hill that it's 'essentially impossible' to bring a Bivens claim these days. The other basis for the Proud Boys' suit relies on the Federal Torts Claim Act to recover under a liability theory of malicious prosecution — a liability that Rupa Bhattacharyya, former director of DOJ's Torts Branch, describes as 'really, really low.' But likely outweighing all the legal hurdles for the Proud Boys' lawsuit are Trump's pardons of Tarrio and commutations of sentences for his co-plaintiffs. The pardons — not just of the Proud Boys but also of 1,600 defendants charged in the Jan. 6 attack — immeasurably complicate DOJ's potential defense against the lawsuit. The pardon and commutation language used by Trump states that it is ending 'a grave national injustice' — and during the signing ceremony, Trump described the Jan. 6 defendants as 'hostages' and said: 'What they've done to these people is outrageous. There's rarely been anything like it in the history of our country.' Tarrio also has written of his conversation with Trump at Mar-a-Lago where Trump told him that he was sorry for what President Joe Biden had done to Jan. 6 defendants and told him, 'I love you guys.' Both the language in the pardon and commutations and Trump's characterizations and apologies make a settlement nearly the only outcome. Indeed, a trial of the claims could result in the absurdity of Trump and other Trump administration officials testifying against DOJ's defense of its actions — in essence the administration testifying against itself. Nor would a judge be inclined to reject such a settlement. While theoretically a judge may refuse to accept a settlement, those instances typically involve cases that give a judge more authority over settlements. for example class actions like the Purdue Pharma opioid settlement case, in which the judge objected to a provision that would have protected the Sackler family from litigation. A settlement would have big financial consequences for taxpayers. The damage caused by the Jan. 6 attack is estimated by Congress' audit arm to be $2.7 billion, of which only $3 million was to be repaid in the form of restitution by Jan. 6 defendants. Whatever restitution was owed is wiped clean by the pardons and commutations, and the DOJ has already supported giving a refund to the defendants of any money already paid. It would also likely cause a flood of similar lawsuits from perhaps all of the 1,600 pardoned/commuted Jan. 6 defendants — which could add millions, maybe even hundreds of millions, to the tab. Such an income stream fits well with Trump's idea of creating a 'compensation fund' for pardoned Jan 6 rioters even as it would — in the words of history professor Allan J. Lichtman — send a 'horrendous message' that would legitimize 'violent insurrections.' Lichtman compared the settlements process to 'white supremacists during the Jim Crow era recasting Confederates who fought in the Civil War as 'noble.'' Essentially, the Trump administration could be creating reparations packages for Jan. 6 rioters. This article was originally published on
