WASHINGTON—In a major victory for democracy and national sovereignty, the Supreme Court decided today not to extend a type of constitutional lawsuit the Court created in 1971, called Bivens actions, into the immigration context. The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Court urging that result.
The respondent in the case is an American citizen named Robert Boule, who operated a rundown bed-and-breakfast on the Canadian border called “the Smuggler’s Inn.” In the past, shipments of numerous kinds of illegal drugs had been seized at the Inn, and for a time Boule had been a confidential informant for the border patrol.
Though offering less-than-luxurious accommodations, the Inn frequently boasted international guests, including on one occasion a Turkish national who had entered this country legally in New York before traveling all the way to Washington State to stay at the Inn. Finding this travel route suspicious, a border agent went to the Inn to investigate. There, Boule alleges, the agent pushed Boule against his car, causing him some injury. Later that evening, after the agent had found the Turkish national’s paperwork in order and left, the Turkish national entered Canada illegally from Boule’s property.
Based on his alleged injuries, Boule brought a Bivens action in federal court against the border agent. The district court dismissed his claim, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
In today’s opinion, the Court focused on whether it is appropriate for it, rather than the people’s representatives in Congress, to make law by creating avenues for bringing lawsuits against federal officials. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Thomas, explained that if there is any reason at all not to create such an avenue, the Court should not do so, but leave that legislative decision to Congress. And the Court found such a reason: as IRLI had argued, immigration enforcement involves national security, and it is particularly inappropriate for the courts, rather than Congress, to subject officials to lawsuits against them personally for the performance of their duties in that context.
“We are pleased with the Court’s decision today, which is not only unquestionably right under the Court’s precedents, but important for the nation,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “Had the Court ruled otherwise, it is not hard to imagine the flood of activist-driven lawsuits against border agents that would have made their job of protecting America even harder than it is already. Anti-borders activists will seize any opportunity to disrupt immigration law enforcement, and we applaud the Court for denying them such an opportunity today.”
The case is Egbert v. Boule, No. 21-147 (Supreme Court).
