Defenseless Constitutional Violations: Egbert v. Boule and the End of Bivens

The case of Robert Boule, the owner of a bed-and-breakfast near the US-Canada border, highlights his constant involvement with the US Customs and Border Protection. Boule accused Customs and Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert of misconduct after Egbert refused to leave his property and became violent. Boule filed a civil action against Egbert, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment (excessive use of force) and the First Amendment (unlawful retaliation). Boule needed the district court to recognize new damages actions for each alleged violation, but the court declined. On appeal, the court of appeals extended the Bivens ruling, only to be reversed by the Supreme Court in Egbert v. Boule (2022), which held that Bivens does not apply to Boule's claims. This decision reflects the Supreme Court's reluctance to recognize new causes of action for constitutional violations, effectively limiting individuals' access to remedies for rights violations. Egbert's case signifies a significant setback for Bivens, potentially leaving victims of constitutional violations defenseless.