Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Kevin Byrd v. Ray Lamb
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 20-20217 · judgment March 9, 2021
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Under this Court’s ruling in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 184 (2017), federal courts recognize an implied cause of action against federal officials accused of unconstitutional conduct when (1) the case is not meaningfully different from Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), or (2) the court is satisfied that the judiciary is well suited to decide whether to provide a remedy. The circuits are split on how Abbasi applies to line-level federal police sued for individual instances of law enforcement overreach under the Fourth Amendment. In the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, such cases can proceed under step one of Abbasi because they are not considered meaningfully different from Bivens. See, e.g., Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2020). In the Ninth Circuit, any case factually distinct from Bivens is considered meaningfully different, but line-level federal police can still be sued under step two of Abbasi for “conventional Fourth Amendment” violations. Boule v. Egbert, 998 F.3d 370 (9th Cir. 2021). In the Fifth and Eight Circuits, neither option is available. Those courts hold that such cases are (1) meaningfully different from Bivens and (2) the judiciary is not well suited to adjudicate them. See, e.g., Pet. App. 6a–7a. The question presented is: Under either step of the Abbasi test, may linelevel federal officers be sued for violating the Fourth Amendment?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Anna Aleksandrovna Bidwell
Institute for Justice
For respondent
R. Trent McCotter
Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences
Proceedings
- Aug 22 2022Rehearing DENIED.
- Jul 28 2022DISTRIBUTED.
- Jul 15 2022Petition for Rehearing filed.
- Jun 21 2022Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Peter Schuck GRANTED.
- Jun 21 2022Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Seth Stoughton GRANTED.
- Jun 21 2022Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by American Civil Liberties Union, et al. GRANTED.
- Jun 21 2022Petition DENIED.
- Jun 13 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/16/2022.
- Jun 10 2022Second supplemental brief of petitioner Kevin Byrd filed. (Distributed)
- Jun 10 2022Second supplemental brief of respondent Ray Lamb filed. (Distributed)
- Mar 17 2022Supplemental brief of respondent Ray Lamb filed. (Distributed)
- Mar 10 2022Supplemental brief of petitioner Kevin Byrd filed. (Distributed)
- Dec 15 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
- Dec 14 2021Reply of petitioner Kevin Byrd filed. (Distributed)
- Nov 30 2021Brief of respondent Ray Lamb in opposition filed.
- Oct 12 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 30, 2021.
- Oct 11 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 27, 2021 to November 30, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Sep 29 2021Letter from counsel for respondent granting blanket consent for the filing of amicus curiae briefs received.
- Sep 27 2021Response Requested. (Due October 27, 2021)
- Sep 22 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.
- Sep 09 2021Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by American Civil Liberties Union, et al.
- Sep 07 2021Motion of Seth Stoughton for leave to file amicus brief not accepted for filing. (September 07, 2021) (corrected efiling submitted)
- Sep 07 2021Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Seth Stoughton.
- Sep 04 2021Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Peter Schuck.
- Aug 10 2021Waiver of right of respondent Ray Lamb to respond filed.
- Aug 06 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 9, 2021)