Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 12, 1971 Decided June 21, 1971
Full case name	Webster Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
Citations	403 U.S. 388 (more) 91 S. Ct. 1999; 29 L. Ed. 2d 619; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 23
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	Dismissed, 276 F. Supp. 12 (E.D.N.Y. 1967); affirmed, 409 F.2d 718 (2d Cir. 1969)
Subsequent	On remand, reversed, 456 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir. 1972)
Holding
Individuals have an implied cause of action against federal government officials who have violated their constitutional rights. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr. Potter Stewart · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Case opinions
Majority	Brennan, joined by Douglas, Stewart, White, Marshall
Concurrence	Harlan (in judgment)
Dissent	Burger
Dissent	Black
Dissent	Blackmun
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

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

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.^[1] The victim of such a deprivation could sue for the violation of the Fourth Amendment itself despite the lack of any federal statute authorizing such a suit. The existence of a remedy for the violation was implied by the importance of the right violated.

The case was understood to create a cause of action against the federal government similar to the one in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the states. However, the Supreme Court has sharply limited new Bivens claims.

The Supreme Court has upheld Bivens claims only three times: in Bivens (1971), Davis v. Passman (1979), and Carlson v. Green (1980). Under Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) and Egbert v. Boule (2022), any claim that is not highly similar to the facts in Bivens (excessive force during arrest), Davis (sex discrimination in federal employment), or Carlson (inadequate care in prison) is a "new context" to which Bivens will not be extended if "there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy."