Document Type
Article
Media Type
text
Abstract
A federal statute allows a person whose federal constitutional rights are violated by state actors to sue for damages. There is no analogous federal statute that allows a person whose constitutional rights are violated by federal actors to sue for damages. In 1971, the United States Supreme Court allowed a suit for damages against federal law enforcement officials who allegedly violated Fourth Amendment rights to proceed directly under the Constitution, creating the Bivens remedy. Beginning in 1983, the Supreme Court reversed course and issued ten consecutive decisions in which it denied a Bivens remedy because no federal statute authorizes suits against federal officials who violate federal constitutional rights. The Supreme Court now considers recognition of a Bivens remedy to be a “disfavored judicial activity.” It is inequitable for a person whose federal constitutional rights are violated by state actors to be able to sue for damages but not if federal actors violate the same rights. Congress should address this inequity by enacting legislation that authorizes a person whose federal constitutional rights are violated by federal actors to sue for damages.
First Page
229
Last Page
242
Publication Date
Spring 5-1-2022
Department
Other
ISSN
0734-1490
Language
eng
Publisher
Northern Illinois University Law Review
Recommended Citation
Rose, Henry
(2022)
"The Demise of the Bivens Remedy is Rendering Enforcement of Federal Constitutional Rights Inequitable But Congress Can Fix It,"
Northern Illinois University Law Review: Vol. 42:
Iss.
2, Article 3.
Suggested Citation
Henry Rose, The Demise of the Bivens Remedy is Rendering Enforcement of Federal Constitutional Rights Inequitable But Congress Can Fix It, 42 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 226 (2022).
