Federal Prison Guards Allegedly Beat an Inmate to a Pulp. The Supreme Court Says He Can’t Sue.
The Supreme Court quietly reversed a lower court decision this week in a ruling that largely flew under the radar. But the short order tells an interesting story about how the same body that created a cause of action for victims of federal abuse has since undermined that very right.
The case concerns a man named Andrew Fields, who alleges that guards at U.S. Penitentiary Lee repeatedly assaulted him after restraining him and placing him in solitary confinement, including ramming his head into the concrete wall and attacking him with a security shield. (He also says that officers seized his legal documents and prescription glasses, neither of which has been returned to him.)
Fields filed a civil suit against the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the warden, supervisory prison officials, and the guards, based on his allegation that the excessive force violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
Those who sue federal employees for misconduct must rely on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the landmark 1971 Supreme Court ruling that permitted a man to sue the federal agents who performed a warrantless search of his home and then strip-searched him at a courthouse. It was a good decision—but Fields will not benefit from it. It’s worth exploring why.Â
In recent years, the Court has issued subsequent decisions that have essentially allowed Bivens to stand in name only. In 2017, for example, the justices ruled in Ziglar v. Abbasi that courts evaluating Bivens claims must subject them to a two-pronged test. First, does the claim present a “new context,” aka, is it “different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by” the Supreme Court? If so, are there any “special factors counselling hesitation”? If yes, then the lawsuit is dead on arrival. (You can imagine how such a vague standard would be nearly impossible for a plaintiff to overcome.)Â
In 2022, the Court watered Bivens down further. That year, the justices heard Egbert v. Boule, a case that concerned a bed and breakfast owner, Robert Boule, who alleges he was assaulted by a Border Patrol agent, Erik Egbert, thus viol
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
