Difference between revisions of "Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(improved)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''Bivens''' refers to a cause of action established by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] for a [[Fourth Amendment]] violation by [[federal]] officers.  The victim is entitled to recover his damages.  ''Bivens'', 403 U.S. 388.
+
In ''Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics'', 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] extended [[Section 1983]] type of liability to agents of the federal government for a [[Fourth Amendment]] violation by [[federal]] officers.  The victim is entitled to recover his damages.
  
−
Subsequently the Court has recognized two more nonstatutory damages remedies:
+
Subsequently the Court has recognized two more non-statutory damages remedies:
  
 
*for employment discrimination in violation of the Due Process Clause, ''Davis v. Passman'', 442 U.S. 228 (1979)
 
*for employment discrimination in violation of the Due Process Clause, ''Davis v. Passman'', 442 U.S. 228 (1979)
Line 21: Line 21:
 
*harassment and intimidation aimed at extracting an easement across private property, ''Wilkie v. Robbins'', 127 S. Ct. 2588 (June 25, 2007)
 
*harassment and intimidation aimed at extracting an easement across private property, ''Wilkie v. Robbins'', 127 S. Ct. 2588 (June 25, 2007)
 
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 +
[[category:Section 1983]]

Revision as of 03:55, December 31, 2007

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court extended Section 1983 type of liability to agents of the federal government for a Fourth Amendment violation by federal officers. The victim is entitled to recover his damages.

Subsequently the Court has recognized two more non-statutory damages remedies:

  • for employment discrimination in violation of the Due Process Clause, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979)
  • for an Eighth Amendment violation by prison officials, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980).

The Court has held against applying the Bivens model to claims of:

  • First Amendment violations by federal employers, Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983)
  • harm to military personnel through activity incident to service, United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987); Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983)
  • wrongful denials of Social Security disability benefits, Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988).
  • against federal agencies, FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994)
  • against private prisons, Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001)
  • harassment and intimidation aimed at extracting an easement across private property, Wilkie v. Robbins, 127 S. Ct. 2588 (June 25, 2007)