How SCOTUS Protects Bad Federal Officers

When bed-and-breakfast owner Robert Boule asked Border Patrol agents, who were questioning a guest, to leave his property, an agent pushed him to the ground.

Several recent Supreme Court decisions have made it nearly impossible to sue a federal officer for alleged violations of constitutional rights. Now the Court is weighing a new case, Egbert v. Boule, that could continue this sorry trend.

Robert Boule is the owner of a bed-and-breakfast in Washington state near the Canadian border. Border Patrol agent Erik Egbert sought to question one of Boule’s guests, a Turkish national, about his immigration status. Boule told the agent to leave his property. Egbert refused, then allegedly shoved Boule against a car and pushed him to the ground, injuring his shoulder. After Boule complained to Egbert’s superiors, the agent allegedly retaliated by asking the IRS to investigate Boule, who was audited.

Boule sued Egbert in federal court under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a 1971 decision in which the Supreme Court said federal officers can be held civilly liable for violating people’s constitutional rights. Unfortunately, the Court has since narrowed Bivens to the point of practically overruling it.- READ MORE