Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics

Supreme Court of United States
403 U.S. 388 (1971)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures by a federal agent acting under color of authority gives rise to a federal cause of action for money damages against that agent.

Facts:

On November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens' apartment in New York City.
The agents did not possess a search warrant or an arrest warrant.
The agents arrested Bivens for alleged narcotics violations and manacled him in front of his wife and children.
During the arrest, the agents allegedly threatened Bivens' family and used unreasonable force.
The agents proceeded to conduct a thorough search of the entire apartment.
Bivens was taken to a federal courthouse where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search.

Procedural Posture:

Webster Bivens filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against several unnamed agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
The District Court dismissed Bivens' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Bivens, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Court of Appeals, with Bivens as appellant and the agents as appellees, affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures by a federal agent acting under color of federal authority give rise to a federal cause of action for damages against that agent?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Brennan

Yes. A violation of the Fourth Amendment by a federal agent gives rise to a cause of action for damages. The very essence of civil liberty consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever an injury is received. Where federally protected rights have been invaded, and Congress has not provided another equally effective remedy, it has been the historic role of the judiciary to use its power to afford a remedy, and damages are a traditional and appropriate form of redress.

Concurring - Justice Harlan

Yes. Federal courts have the inherent power to award damages for the violation of constitutionally protected interests, and this power does not require an explicit statutory authorization from Congress. For individuals whose Fourth Amendment rights are violated but are not criminally prosecuted, the exclusionary rule offers no protection. Therefore, a damages remedy is not only appropriate but is the only possible remedy, meaning for people in Bivens' position, 'it is damages or nothing.'

Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger

No. The Court is improperly creating a damage remedy that was neither provided for by the Constitution nor enacted by Congress, thereby encroaching on the legislative power. The Court should recognize the shortcomings of the exclusionary rule and urge Congress to create a statutory remedy, such as a waiver of sovereign immunity, that would effectively compensate victims of unconstitutional police conduct while avoiding the negative societal costs of the exclusionary rule.

Dissenting - Justice Black

No. The Constitution does not grant the judiciary the power to create new causes of action; that is a legislative function belonging to Congress. Congress has created damage remedies against state officials (under § 1983) but has pointedly not done so for federal officials, suggesting a deliberate choice. Creating such a remedy would flood the already burdened courts with lawsuits and could deter federal officers from the proper performance of their duties.

Dissenting - Justice Blackmun

No. The Court is engaging in judicial legislation that will open the door to an 'avalanche of new federal cases' against law enforcement. This will likely hinder proper police work and make the job of conscientious officers more difficult. For over 180 years, neither Congress nor the Court saw a need for this remedy, and if one is now needed, it is the role of Congress, not the judiciary, to create it.

Analysis:

The Bivens decision established a landmark implied cause of action, empowering individuals to seek damages from federal officials for constitutional violations. This judicial creation of a remedy affirmed the principle that constitutional rights must have corresponding remedies, even in the absence of specific congressional action. While foundational, the Supreme Court has since significantly narrowed the scope of Bivens, viewing it as a product of its time and expressing strong reluctance to extend it to new contexts or different constitutional amendments.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature