Talk:Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

Wikipedia - Wrong Again!

WTF? You people let anyone edit these pages? Mr. Bivens, Webster Bivens that is, was indeed charged with narcotics violations, but a U.S. Commissioner dismissed the charges. Moreover, the attorneys did not represent Mr. Bivens "pro bono" but, rather, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals appointed Stephen A. Grant at the appellate level.

Additionally, the trial court dismissed not only for lack of jurisdiction but also for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Indeed, whether or not Mr. Bivens stated a claim upon which relief could be granted was the ONLY question reviewed on appeal by the Second Circuit.

I won't even begin to address the other plethora of errors in this article.

Wikipedia: The shameless crack whore of questionable pseudo-knowledge.

You're an idiot. The point of Wikipedia is that if you find a mistake, you fix it. 149.175.232.100 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to address and clear these issues:

• (1). Was Bivens actually charged with narcotics violations? Yes, that's true, and they were dismissed (http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/866909#). This fact has no bearing on the decision here.
• (2). Was Bivens' attorney Stephen A. Grant working pro bono or not? The Circuit Court did indeed appoint Grant (http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/866909#); Bivens was acting pro per and had filed a motion for leave in forma pauperis, so no, Grant probably didn't get paid. Also trivial.
• (3). Is this true, "the trial court dismissed not only for lack of jurisdiction but also for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Indeed, whether or not Mr. Bivens stated a claim upon which relief could be granted was the ONLY question reviewed on appeal by the Second Circuit." True. The Supreme Court rejected the no-jurisdiction holding of the Second Circuit, citing Bell v. Hood (1949), and focused on the secondary question.

I've adjusted the article accordingly. --Lockley (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OR/Unreferenced info in Analysis section

I added the templates b/c the section cites absolutely no reference. It looks like commentary, but Wikipedia is not for that. It looks like either OR (if added by somebody who wrote that) or unreferenced material (maybe legal analysis by some lawyer?). If it's the former, the section shouldn't be there; if the latter, then it needs serious editing. -Tim Song (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the notable things about the case (that the Court created the cause of action out of whole cloth, that is judicial common law, that is theoretically subject to overrule by the courts). There may be a better way of putting it to avoid the concern that it's "commentary." Whatever it is, it's not MY commentary. it's a consensus position. Finding a citation (or several) will be easy. I'll work on it ASAP. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Whatever it is, it's not MY commentary. it's a consensus position." Yet it's a year later and it's still not referenced material, it's unsourced legal analysis. It seems like something someone wrote for a class about Bivens or something. If it's consensus, perhaps this could be documented somehow? For example, with links to appropriate law review articles, not just links to Wikipedia articles about individual cases, that's not good enough. See also below. Agnosticaphid (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More problems with "Analysis"

The section says this: "The leading interpretation of Bivens is that it is Federal common law, and not Constitutional interpretation. The Court has assumed, unchallenged, the final word on the meaning of the Constitution. However, it is not a general federal lawmaker. That role belongs to the Congress. The court may still create judge-made law, but it is only controlling absent overriding Congressional enactments. The status of Bivens today is that Congress could legitimately repeal the court's decision."

This seems to me to be very misleading, but I do not know enough about Bivens to edit it appropriately. The article implies that Congress could do away with Bivens altogether in whatever manner it chooses. But how could this be true, given that the thrust of the decision was that the Court was going to create a remedy for a right that Congress failed pass legislation vindicating? It seems like Congress could only do away with Bivens by passing some other remedy, but then that's not really "repealing" Bivens, it's just modifying the remedy that the court chose.

In any event, court decisions cannot be "repealed," which is a term reserved for overturned legislation or other laws.

Anyway, this is a risk with unsourced articles! I will wait to see if any responses are forthcoming before deleting. Agnosticaphid (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Dickerson v. United States seems to strongly suggest that Bivens could not be overridden by act of Congress. Someone who has time to put together some sources should do an overhaul of this section.71.202.183.50 (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to give this another two weeks, but after that I'm removing the "Analysis" section completely. I'm not capable of rewriting it and it does not belong in this article, as illustrated by the bevy of tags it has accumulated. If in the future someone wants to rewrite it, they can find the old text from the diff. Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alas, it's that time. I've removed the offending section completely. I left the summary of the case and concurrences/dissents, but that could possibly be removed as well. Agnosticaphid (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Where?

What is the location of the Bivens search and arrest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ediza8 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816072554/http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca:80/en/2010/2010scc27/2010scc27.pdf to http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc27/2010scc27.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done —grolltech^(talk) 00:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation format

There is a problem with the citation formatting in the article. Two different sources are cited using the notation "^[1]" in the article (the text of the Bivens decision itself and Davis v. Passman). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Dead Letter Law

The court hasn't functionally overturned Bivens, but in light of its ruling in Egbert v. Boule, Bivens is functionally dead. The facts of the two cases are identical in all key regards. Bivens was a fourth amendment claim against federal agents engaged in law enforcement activities. Egbert was a fourth (as well as a first) amendment claim against a federal agent who, despite being a CBP agent, was engaged in law enforcement activities, not border protection.

The court's ruling in Egbert is not mutually consistent with Bivens, but considering the latter has not been formally overruled, rather than declaring so maybe we should create a third section declaring Bivens to be dead letter law. Under Egbert it is not possible to bring a Bivens claims anymore, and just because the court doesn't say so doesn't mean we should ignore it. Settlementboa (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Settlementboa (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)