Abstract
For nearly 50 years, the Bivens action served as a vehicle to compensate individuals when their constitutional rights had been infringed on by a federal officer. Bivens actions operated as the federal equivalent of Section 1983 claims in state courts against state officers. But in June 2022, with a conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bivens framework was gutted by Egbert v. Boule. Boule held that if a Bivens claim is filed in a context that differs from the three previously accepted contexts (the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments), the claim must fail, as Congress is better equipped to address the issue. In the context of federal prisoners, this drastically alters the current landscape, and makes it harder for prisoners in federal custody to file claims for relief when their civil rights have been violated. Federal prisoners are a vulnerable population and this post-Boule landscape leaves them without a meaningful remedy when their constitutional rights have been violated. This Note examines how Boule altered the Bivens landscape and offers support for a strengthening of Bivens actions and further protection of federal prisoner rights based on precedent and social policy.
Recommended Citation
Hannah M. Wilk,
Bivens and Beyond: Creating a Meaningful Remedy for Federal Prisoners in a Post-Boule Landscape,
30 Wash. & Lee J. Civ. Rts. & Soc. Just. 333
(2024).
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj/vol30/iss2/10
Included in
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons