WASHINGTON (CN) — In a Friday afternoon orders list, the high court declined to hear a challenge to its precedent in Bevins but instead will hear a narrower challenge in the case asking the court to expand the precedent.
The case, Erik Egbert v. Robert Boule, involves a border patrol agent who harassed a bed-and-breakfast owner near the Canadian border who he suspected of smuggling an immigrant. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics says an individual can file a lawsuit for damages if their Fourth Amendment rights are violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
The case before the court asks if Bevins applies for First Amendment retaliation claims and for claims against federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions.
Robert Boule had served as a government informant for years and told a border patrol agent, Erik Egbert, of a Turkish national that would be arriving at his bed-and-breakfast Smuggler’s Inn. Egbert assumed the Turkish national was entering the country for criminal purposes and followed the two men into the inn’s driveway, blocking Boule’s vehicle. When Boule asked Egbert to leave, he declined and allegedly pushed Boule aside. Boule later claimed he obtained a back injury from this altercation.
Boule claims Egbert turned him into the Internal Revenue Service for unaccounted income in retaliation for alerting the agent’s superiors following the incident at the inn. He filed a lawsuit against him under Bivens for the alleged retaliation and his actions at the inn.
A district court granted a summary judgment on both claims in favor of Egbert, claiming the Supreme Court did not approve of expanding the Bivens precedent. However, the court did note that Boule’s claim “clearly presents a new context in Bivens.” The Ninth Circuit then reversed both judgments, holding that Boule had valid claims.
The court also agreed to hear three other cases — two of which were consolidated — adding three hours of oral arguments to its docket.
In Shakeel Kahn v. United States and Xiulu Ruan v. United States, the court will examine how doctors are prosecuted under the Controlled Substances Act for prescribing medications “outside the usual course of professional practice.” The lower court circuits are split on how they determine a medical professional’s guilt for conviction under the act and the case asks for clarification.
The court will also hear a challenge to how group health plans treat patients with end-stage renal disease under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
