Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Ames Ray v. Donald Priver D.C. Cir.
- 2026Andrew Melendez-Gonzalez v. Mr. Losse 11th Cir.
- 2026Marlon McDougall v. Tyson 3rd Cir.
- 2026Charles House v. Nurse Bremar 4th Cir.
- 2026Bal v. U.S. Department of the Treasury 2d Cir.
- 2026Verduzco v. United States Department of Justice D.D.C.
- 2026Willett v. Pompeo D.D.C.
- 2026Villegas-Lugo v. Humphrey 5th Cir.
- 2026Hamett v. City of Broken Arrow 10th Cir.
- 2026Cohan v. United States Trustee Program D.D.C.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
BIVENS v. SIX UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS
Tional prohibition, but merely said to be in excess of the authority delegated to him by the Congress. Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U. S. 647 (1963). Finally, we cannot accept respondents’ formulation of the question as whether the availability of money damages is necessary to enforce the Fourth Amendment. For we have here no explicit congressional declaration that persons injured by a federal officer’s violation of the Fourth Amendment may not recover money damages from the agents, but must instead be remitted to another remedy, equally effective in the view of Congress. The question is merely whether petitioner, if he can demonstrate an injury consequent upon the violation by' federal agents of his Fourth Amendment rights, is entitled to redress his injury through a particular remedial mechanism normally available in the federal courts. Cf. J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 433 (1964); Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13, 16 (1933). “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803). Having concluded that petitioner’s complaint states a cause of action under the Fourth Amendment, supra, at 390-395, we hold that petitioner is entitled to recover „ money damages for any injuries he has suffered as a result of the agents’ violation of the Amendment.
II
In addition to holding that petitioner’s complaint had failed to state facts making out a cause of action, the District Court ruled that in any event respondents were' immune from liability by virtue of their official position. 276 F. Supp., at 15. This question was not passed upon by the Court of Appeals, and accordingly we do not consider it here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.