The justices have added four new cases to their file, including the Bivens case, but will not reconsider Bivens itself
November 5, 2021
Fifty years ago, in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, The Supreme Court ruled that even if there is no specific legal authorization to claim damages, an individual can sue an FBI agent for infringing his Fourth Amendment rights.In the next nine years Bivins, The court recognized Bivins Claim compensation for violating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, but emphasized in 2017 “expand Bivins The remedy is now an unwelcome activity. “
On Friday, the judges agreed to decide whether Bivins The owner of a hotel on the U.S.-Canada border claimed that U.S. Border Patrol agents violated his Fourth Amendment rights and First Amendment rights and should have access to remedies.But the judge rejected the request for reconsideration Bivins itself. case, Egbert v. Bull, Is one of the four justices From their Friday meeting, A total of three hours of debate time.The others are Nguyen v. U.S. with Kahn v. United States (The justices merge) and Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. Davita, Inc.
Egbert v. Bull
Egbert In 2014, Agent Erik Egbert went to Smugglers Inn, the property line at the back of the property connected to the US-Canada border and approached a car carrying guests from Turkey. The hotel owner Robert Ball told Egbert to leave. When Egbert refused to do so, Egbert pushed Bull to the ground and asked the Turkish guest his (legal) immigration status. Boule later complained to Egbert’s boss, prompting Egbert to suggest to the IRS that Boule be investigated.
Boolean submitted a copy Bivins Filed a lawsuit in federal court, arguing that Egbert violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.The district court ruled that Bull’s claim would be unallowably extended Bivins, But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his claim and allowed him to continue the appeal. With the opposition of 12 judges, all members of the Court of Appeal rejected Egbert’s application for retrial.
Egbert came to the Supreme Court last summer. He asked the judges to weigh two specific issues related to the extension. Bivins: Whatever Bivins Applies to First Amendment claims for retaliation, and whether it extends to Fourth Amendment claims involving immigration enforcement.describe Bivins As “the remnants of a past era that is inconsistent with modern precedents,” Egbert also urged the justices to deny Bivins common. In a brief order on Friday afternoon, the judge approved Egbert’s request to determine the first two issues related to the extension. Bivins, But they rejected his request to consider vetoing Bivins.
Ruan with Kahn
exist Nguyen v. U.S. with Kahn v. United StatesThe judges agreed to decide whether a doctor who has the right to prescribe controlled drugs can be convicted of illegally distributing these drugs when they reasonably believe that his prescriptions meet professional standards. In April of this year, the court raised this issue in the case of Ruan Xiulu, a doctor who specializes in pain management in Alabama. The government argues that doctors prescribe drugs outside the standard of care—for example, opioids when physical therapy or detox facilities are more appropriate. Ruan retorted that he had always acted in good faith and assessed the needs of each patient individually.
The second case opened in July. In this case, doctor Shakeel Kahn argued that he did not know that his patients were abusing or selling the drugs he prescribed for them-mainly opioids. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. The judge approved the two cases and combined them into a one-hour oral argument.
Marietta Memorial Hospital
The judge will also weigh the country’s largest dialysis provider DaVita’s dispute over the interpretation of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, which prohibits health plans from considering whether individuals are eligible for Medicare benefits because they suffer from kidney failure . The health plan also cannot provide these people with benefits that are different from the benefits they provide to others covered by the plan. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the Marietta Memorial Hospital Health Plan discriminated against patients with renal failure because it provided less dialysis coverage, the plan was submitted to the Supreme Court, which approved its request for review on Friday.
In cases approved on Friday, judges may hear oral arguments in the spring.Expect more orders from Friday meetings at 9:30 AM on Monday
This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.