Alejandro De La Paz v. Jason Coy, 804 F.3d 1200

Background

Plaintiffs (described by the dissent as undocumented immigrants) allege Border Patrol agents stopped and arrested them solely because of their Hispanic appearance, violating the Fourth Amendment.
District courts denied the agents’ motions to dismiss, allowing Bivens damages claims to proceed against federal officers for the alleged unlawful stops and arrests.
A Fifth Circuit panel reversed, holding undocumented immigrants may not, as a matter of law, bring Bivens claims for such stops and arrests. De La Paz v. Coy, 786 F.3d 367.
Judge Prado (joined by Judges Dennis and Graves) filed a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, arguing the panel erred and that Bivens applies to these claims.
The disagreement centers on whether allowing a Bivens remedy here would extend Bivens to a "new context" under Supreme Court precedents and on whether immigration status or the identity of the federal actors (Border Patrol) meaningfully changes that context.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether undocumented immigrants can bring Bivens claims for routine Fourth Amendment stops/arrests	De La Paz plaintiffs: Bivens permits damages for federal officers’ Fourth Amendment violations regardless of plaintiff’s immigration status	Panel/defendants: undocumented status bars Bivens relief for these claims	Panel held Bivens unavailable to undocumented immigrants; the dissent argued the panel was wrong and Bivens should apply; rehearing en banc was denied.
Whether allowing Bivens here would create a "new context" under Iqbal/Malesko	Plaintiffs: routine domestic stops/arrests by federal agents are within the core Bivens context (Fourth Amendment) so not new	Defendants: differences (immigration status, Border Patrol actors) make the context new and counsel against Bivens	Panel treated context as new and declined Bivens; dissent says the context is not new and Bivens governs.
Whether precedent (Fifth Circuit and other circuits) supports or forecloses Bivens here	Plaintiffs rely on Fifth Circuit precedent recognizing Bivens for Border Patrol Fourth Amendment claims (e.g., Martinez-Aguero) and Second Circuit decisions allowing similar claims	Defendants rely on panel reading of Arar/Mirmehdi and other decisions to cabin Bivens and deny extension here	Dissent contends existing Fifth Circuit and some circuit decisions support Bivens; panel reached contrary result; en banc rehearing denied.
Whether foreign or immigration-policy considerations counsel against implying a damages remedy	Plaintiffs: such concerns are absent for routine domestic Fourth Amendment stops; damages are the ordinary remedy	Defendants: immigration policy, national-security, or foreign-relations implications may counsel hesitation in implying Bivens	Dissent finds no such extraordinary considerations here; panel thought context differed enough to preclude Bivens.

Key Cases Cited

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized a damages remedy for a federal officer’s Fourth Amendment violation)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (framework: first ask whether a case presents a "new context" for Bivens)
Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (Bivens extensions limited; core holding described)
Turkmen v. Hasty, 789 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2015) (Second Circuit allowed Fourth Amendment Bivens claims by undocumented immigrants)
Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (declined Bivens remedy for extraordinary rendition context)
Mirmehdi v. United States, 689 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2012) (refused Bivens relief where alleged misconduct involved non-routine, high-level representations to courts)
Martinez-Aguero v. Gonzalez, 459 F.3d 618 (5th Cir. 2006) (recognized Bivens claim for unlawful arrest and excessive force by Border Patrol agent)
Gochicoa v. Johnson, 238 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2000) (binding effect of prior-panel precedent on both result and necessary reasoning)