Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Notre Dame Law School (8)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (6)
- Selected Works (3)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (3)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (2)
-
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (2)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (2)
- Fordham Law School (1)
- Georgetown University Law Center (1)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (1)
- Loyola University Chicago, School of Law (1)
- Pepperdine University (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- The University of Akron (1)
- University of Colorado Law School (1)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (1)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (1)
- Valparaiso University (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Notre Dame Law Review (8)
- Touro Law Review (5)
- Articles (3)
- Faculty Working Papers (2)
- Faculty Works (2)
-
- Martin A. Schwartz (2)
- Scholarly Articles (2)
- All Faculty Scholarship (1)
- ConLawNOW (1)
- Faculty Publications & Other Works (1)
- Fordham Urban Law Journal (1)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (1)
- John F. Preis (1)
- Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary (1)
- Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (1)
- Maryland Law Review (1)
- Publications (1)
- Scholarly Works (1)
- Seattle University Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 37
Full-Text Articles in Law
Who Can Protect Black Protest?, Brandon Hasbrouck
Who Can Protect Black Protest?, Brandon Hasbrouck
Scholarly Articles
Police violence both as the cause of and response to the racial justice protests following George Floyd’s murder called fresh attention to the need for legal remedies to hold police officers accountable. In addition to the well-publicized issue of qualified immunity, the differential regimes for asserting civil rights claims against state and federal agents for constitutional rights violations create a further barrier to relief. Courts have only recognized damages as a remedy for such abuses in limited contexts against federal employees under the Bivens framework. The history of Black protest movements reveals the violent responses police have to such challenges …
The Demise Of The Bivens Remedy Is Rendering Enforcement Of Federal Constitutional Rights Inequitable But Congress Can Fix It, Henry Rose
Faculty Publications & Other Works
A federal statute, 42 U.S.C. 1983, allows a person whose federal constitutional rights are violated by state actors to sue them for damages to compensate for the harm caused by the constitutional violations. There is no analogous federal statute that allows a person whose federal constitutional rights have been violated by federal actors to sue them for damages to compensate for the harm caused by the constitutional violations. The United States Supreme Court allowed Webster Bivens, a man who sued federal law enforcement officials for falsely arresting and physically abusing him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, to sue …
Recovering The Tort Remedy For Federal Official Wrongdoing, Gregory Sisk
Recovering The Tort Remedy For Federal Official Wrongdoing, Gregory Sisk
Notre Dame Law Review
As the Supreme Court weakens the Bivens constitutional tort cause of action and federal officers avoid liability for unlawful behavior through qualified immunity, we should recollect the merit of the common-law tort remedy for holding the federal government accountable for official wrongdoing. For more than a century after ratification of the Constitution, federal officers who trespassed on the rights of American citizens could be held personally liable under common-law tort theories, but then routinely were indemnified by the government.
The modern Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) roughly replicates the original regime for official wrongdoing by imposing liability directly on the …
The Inconsistent Originalism Of Judge-Made Remedies Against Federal Officers, Stephen I. Vladeck
The Inconsistent Originalism Of Judge-Made Remedies Against Federal Officers, Stephen I. Vladeck
Notre Dame Law Review
Professor Carlos V´azquez and I have explained in depth why the Supreme Court’s evisceration of damages remedies for constitutional violations by federal officers is analytically and historically incoherent. And I have written elsewhere about the extent to which modern constitutional remedies doctrine has turned a remarkably blind eye to foundational principles of federalism—paying little more than lip service to the robust availability of common-law damages (and habeas) remedies against federal officers in state courts from the Founding through the Civil War—and, at least for damages, well into the twentieth century. I don’t mean to rehash (or relitigate) either argument here. …
Lessons For Bivens And Qualified Immunity Debates From Nineteenth-Century Damages Litigation Against Federal Officers, Andrew Kent
Lessons For Bivens And Qualified Immunity Debates From Nineteenth-Century Damages Litigation Against Federal Officers, Andrew Kent
Notre Dame Law Review
This Essay was written for a symposium marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. As the current Court has turned against Bivens—seemingly confining it to three specific contexts created by Bivens and two follow-on decisions in 1979 and 1980—scholars and litigants have developed a set of claims to respond to the Court’s critique. The Court now views the judicially created Bivens cause of action and remedy as a separation-of-powers foul; Congress is said to be the institution which should weigh the costs and benefits …
Going Rogue: The Supreme Court's Newfound Hostility To Policy-Based Bivens Claims, Joanna C. Schwartz, Alexander Reinert, James E. Pfander
Going Rogue: The Supreme Court's Newfound Hostility To Policy-Based Bivens Claims, Joanna C. Schwartz, Alexander Reinert, James E. Pfander
Notre Dame Law Review
In Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017), the Supreme Court held that a proposed Bivens remedy was subject to an exacting special factors analysis when the claim arises in a “new context.” In Ziglar itself, the Court found the context of the plaintiffs’ claims to be “new” because, in the Court’s view, they challenged “large-scale policy decisions concerning the conditions of confinement imposed on hundreds of prisoners.” Bivens claims for damages caused by unconstitutional policies, the Court suggested, were inappropriate.
This Essay critically examines the Ziglar Court’s newfound hostility to policy-based Bivens claims. We show that an …
Was Bivens Necessary?, Ann Woolhandler, Michael G. Collins
Was Bivens Necessary?, Ann Woolhandler, Michael G. Collins
Notre Dame Law Review
Some federal common-law skeptics have provided criteria for keeping federal common law in check. Although not specifically addressing Bivensactions, Professor Nelson has argued that when engaged in federal common lawmaking, federal courts should see themselves as more tied to custom, general principles of the common law, and precedent, rather than seeing themselves as engaged in a freewheeling search for the best policy. This methodology makes federal common law less subject to criticism as usurping the lawmaking roles of other government actors. Professor Merrill has argued that federal common law needs to be specifically intended by the framers of a …
Bivens And The Ancien Régime, Carlos M. Vázquez
Bivens And The Ancien Régime, Carlos M. Vázquez
Notre Dame Law Review
This Essay considers the relevance for Bivens claims of the Court’s shift to a nouveau régime to address the implication of private rights of action under statutes. Part I describes and assesses the Court’s reasons for shifting to the nouveau régime in the statutory context. Part II explains why the Court’s shift to a nouveau régime for implying damage remedies under federal statutes does not justify a similar shift with respect to constitutional remedies. The Constitution’s omission of specific remedies for violation of the Constitution’s substantive provisions does not reflect the Founders’ belief that such remedies are unnecessary to give …
Stare Decisis As Authority And Aspiration, Randy J. Kozel
Stare Decisis As Authority And Aspiration, Randy J. Kozel
Notre Dame Law Review
The doctrine of stare decisis remains a defining feature of American law despite challenges to its legitimacy and efficacy. Even so, there is space between the role that stare decisis currently plays and the potential that it offers. The gap is evident in the jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court. Though the Justices continue to underscore the fundamental status of stare decisis, the Court’s opinions sometimes seem quick to depart from precedents whose reasoning has fallen out of favor.
Using Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents as a case study, this Article explains how the Court can invigorate the doctrine …
A Scapegoat Theory Of Bivens, Katherine M. Crocker
A Scapegoat Theory Of Bivens, Katherine M. Crocker
Notre Dame Law Review
Some scapegoats are innocent. Some warrant blame, but not the amount they are made to bear. Either way, scapegoating can allow in-groups to sidestep social problems by casting blame onto out-groups instead of confronting such problems—and the in-groups’ complicity in perpetuating them—directly.
This Essay suggests that it may be productive to view the Bivens regime’s rise as countering various exercises in scapegoating and its retrenchment as constituting an exercise in scapegoating. The earlier cases can be seen as responding to social structures that have scapegoated racial, economic, and other groups through overaggressive policing, mass incarceration, and inequitable government conduct more …
Going Rogue: The Supreme Court's Newfound Hostility To Policy-Based Bivens Claims, Joanna C. Schwartz, Alexander A. Reinert, James E. Pfander
Going Rogue: The Supreme Court's Newfound Hostility To Policy-Based Bivens Claims, Joanna C. Schwartz, Alexander A. Reinert, James E. Pfander
Articles
In Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017), the Supreme Court held that a proposed Bivens remedy was subject to an exacting special factors analysis when the claim arises in a “new context.” In Ziglar itself, the Court found the context of the plaintiffs’ claims to be “new” because, in the Court’s view, they challenged “large-scale policy decisions concerning the conditions of confinement imposed on hundreds of prisoners.” Bivens claims for damages caused by unconstitutional policies, the Court suggested, were inappropriate.
This Essay critically examines the Ziglar Court’s newfound hostility to policy-based Bivens claims. We show that an …
Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Katherine Mims Crocker And Brandon Hasbrouck In Support Of Neither Party With Respect To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss: Dyer V. Smith, Brandon Hasbrouck, Katherine Mims Crocker
Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Katherine Mims Crocker And Brandon Hasbrouck In Support Of Neither Party With Respect To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss: Dyer V. Smith, Brandon Hasbrouck, Katherine Mims Crocker
Scholarly Articles
This case illustrates how the First Amendment functions as an essential backstop to Fourth Amendment freedoms—and vice versa. As revealed by the national response to the killing of George Floyd and so many similar injustices, the ability to record encounters with government representatives is critical to preserving civil rights, and especially the right to avoid excessive force. The public only “became aware of the circumstances surrounding George Floyd’s death because citizens standing on a sidewalk exercised their First Amendment rights and filmed a police officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck until he died.” Index Newspapers LLC v. U.S. Marshals Serv., …
"It's Open Season At The Border": Why The Bivens Remedy Should Extend To U.S. Border Patrol Agents In Cross-Border Shootings, Samantha Garza
"It's Open Season At The Border": Why The Bivens Remedy Should Extend To U.S. Border Patrol Agents In Cross-Border Shootings, Samantha Garza
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Remedies Symposium: Reexamining Bivens After Ziglar V. Abbasi, Bernard W. Bell
Remedies Symposium: Reexamining Bivens After Ziglar V. Abbasi, Bernard W. Bell
ConLawNOW
In Ziglar v. Abbasi, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited Bivens doctrine, suggesting that courts recognize constitutional tort actions only in cases closely analogous to one of the cases comprising the 1970s/1980s era Bivens trilogy, namely Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, Davis v. Passman, and Carlson v. Green. In doing so the Court set forth several factors that might make a case distinguishable from those 1970s/1980s cases. This essay argues that the key to Ziglar v. Abbasi is not the analogical exercise the Court imposed, but the Court’s concern that Bivens actions could become a mechanism for …
Hamad V. Gates And The Continuing Interpretation Of Boumediene: A Note On 732 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2013), Paul Blenz
Hamad V. Gates And The Continuing Interpretation Of Boumediene: A Note On 732 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2013), Paul Blenz
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
A particularly prevalent type of claims in post-Boumediene cases are Bivens claims by detainees. One such case is Hamad v. Gates. Hamad represents a typical claim made by such detainees, and is the focus of this note. In Hamad, the Ninth Circuit held that a statute that had previously thought to be entirely overruled by Boumediene actually survived. This statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e), stemmed from years of back-and-forth debate between the Supreme Court and Congress. The result of this conflict is still unsettled. The main issue is whether the Court’s primary concern in overruling the jurisdiction-stripping statutes of Congress …
Supreme Court Section 1983 Decisions: (October 2001 Term), Martin A. Schwartz
Supreme Court Section 1983 Decisions: (October 2001 Term), Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Qualified Immunity And Statutory Interpretation, Ilan Wurman
Qualified Immunity And Statutory Interpretation, Ilan Wurman
Seattle University Law Review
Before the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor, excessive force cases were pursued under either state law or the insuperable “shocks the conscience” test of the Fourteenth Amendment. Only after Graham did excessive force cases—now under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983—inundate the federal courts, which had by then granted far-reaching immunities to officers for their constitutional torts. As a result of federal qualified immunity doctrine, which many states have adopted for themselves, excessive force cases rarely get to trial, plaintiffs often cannot recover, and courts struggle to find principled distinctions from one qualified immunity case to the …
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz
Martin A. Schwartz
No abstract provided.
In Defense Of Implied Injunctive Relief In Constitutional Cases, John F. Preis
In Defense Of Implied Injunctive Relief In Constitutional Cases, John F. Preis
John F. Preis
State Law, The Westfall Act, And The Nature Of The Bivens Question, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Stephen I. Vladeck
State Law, The Westfall Act, And The Nature Of The Bivens Question, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Stephen I. Vladeck
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In a number of recent cases touching to varying degrees on national security, different courts of appeals have applied a strong presumption against recognition of a Bivens cause of action. In each of these cases, the courts’ approach was based on the belief that the creation of a cause of action is a legislative function and that the courts would be usurping Congress’s role if they recognized a Bivens action without legislative authorization. Thus, faced with a scenario where they believed that the remedial possibilities were either "Bivens or nothing," these courts of appeals chose nothing.
The concerns that …
Asking The First Question: Reframing Bivens After Minneci, Alexander A. Reinert, Lumen N. Mulligan
Asking The First Question: Reframing Bivens After Minneci, Alexander A. Reinert, Lumen N. Mulligan
Articles
In Minneci v. Pollard, decided in January 2012, the Supreme Court refused to recognize a Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents suit against employees of a privately run federal prison because state tort law provided an alternative remedy, thereby adding a federalism twist to what had been strictly a separation-of-powers debate. In this Article, we show why this new state-law focus is misguided. We first trace the Court’s prior alternative-remedies-to-Bivens holdings, illustrating that this history is one narrowly focused on separation of powers at the federal level. Minneci’s break with this tradition raises several concerns. On a …
Asking The First Question: Reframing Bivens After Minneci, Alexander A. Reinert, Lumen N. Mulligan
Asking The First Question: Reframing Bivens After Minneci, Alexander A. Reinert, Lumen N. Mulligan
Faculty Works
In Minneci v. Pollard, decided in January 2012, the Supreme Court refused to recognize a Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents suit against employees of a privately run federal prison because state tort law provided an alternative remedy, thereby adding a federalism twist to what had been strictly a separation-of-powers debate. In this Article, we show why this new state-law focus is misguided. We first trace the Court’s prior alternative-remedies-to-Bivens holdings, illustrating that this history is one narrowly focused on separation of powers at the federal level. Minneci’s break with this tradition raises several concerns. On a doctrinal level, …
Supreme Court § 1983 Decisions-October 2008 Term, Martin A. Schwartz
Supreme Court § 1983 Decisions-October 2008 Term, Martin A. Schwartz
Martin A. Schwartz
No abstract provided.
Measuring The Success Of Bivens Litigation And Its Consequences For The Individual Liability Model, Alexander A. Reinert
Measuring The Success Of Bivens Litigation And Its Consequences For The Individual Liability Model, Alexander A. Reinert
Articles
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Constitution provides a cause of action in damages for violations of the Fourth Amendment by individual federal officers. The so-called "Bivens "cause of action—initially extended to other constitutional provisions and then sharply curtailed over the past two decades—has been a subject of controversy among academics and judges since its creation. The most common criticism of Bivens—one that has been repeated in different venues for thirty years— is that the Court's individual liability model, in …
Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland
Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland
Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Story Of Bivens V. Six Unknown-Named Agents Of The Federal Bureau Of Narcotics, James E. Pfander
The Story Of Bivens V. Six Unknown-Named Agents Of The Federal Bureau Of Narcotics, James E. Pfander
Faculty Working Papers
In Bivens v. Six Unknown-Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court recognized the right of an individual to sue federal government officials for a violation of constitutional rights. Drawing on interviews with some of the participants, including Webster Bivens himself and one of the agents who conducted the search, this chapter in the forthcoming book Federal Courts' Stories describes the events that led to the litigation and the complex array of factors that informed the Court's approach to the case. After placing the Bivens decision in context, the chapter evaluates the competing narratives that have grown …
Rethinking Bivens: Legitimacy And Constitutional Adjudication, James E. Pfander, David Baltmanis
Rethinking Bivens: Legitimacy And Constitutional Adjudication, James E. Pfander, David Baltmanis
Faculty Working Papers
The Supreme Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics provides an uncertain framework for the enforcement of constitutional rights against the federal government. Rather than recognizing a federal common law right of action for use in every case, the Court views itself as devising actions on a case-by-case basis in light of a range of factors. Critics on all sides question the Court's approach, doubting either its power to fashion federal common law or the tendency of its case-by-case analysis to create gaps in constitutional enforcement. Particularly when compared with actions under …
Supreme Court § 1983 Decisions-October 2008 Term, Martin A. Schwartz
Supreme Court § 1983 Decisions-October 2008 Term, Martin A. Schwartz
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Why Bivens Won't Die: The Legacy Of Peoples V. Cca Detention Centers, Lumen N. Mulligan
Why Bivens Won't Die: The Legacy Of Peoples V. Cca Detention Centers, Lumen N. Mulligan
Faculty Works
Interpreting recent Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit, in Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers, held that a federal prisoner confined in a privately run prison may not bring a Bivens suit against the employees of the private prison for violations of his constitutional rights when alternative state-law causes of action are available. The author first reviews the Supreme Court's evolving Bivens jurisprudence and turns next to an overview of the Tenth Circuit's opinion. Third, the author argues that, despite the Tenth Circuit's new approach, putative constitutional claims brought under state-law theories of recovery will often be re-federalized, producing uniform federal …