King v. US Customs Officer
1:23-cv-09609
E.D.N.YJun 10, 2025Background
- John Dar King, a Haitian-born U.S. citizen, arrived at JFK Airport from the Dominican Republic with six boxes of lotion after obtaining permission to bring them on board.
- King wore Jewish religious garb upon arrival and was confronted by Customs and Border Protection Officer Aaron Thomas, who accused him of stealing luggage.
- Thomas and two unidentified officers detained King for four hours, confiscated his luggage, and returned it nine days later.
- King alleged the officers’ actions were motivated by racial, ethnic, and religious bias.
- King sued under Bivens, asserting violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; the defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Bivens action can be brought for alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations by CBP officers at an international border | King claimed his rights were violated by unlawful detention and seizure due to discriminatory animus | Thomas argued Bivens remedies should not extend to CBP officers at the border and Fourteenth Amendment claims do not apply to federal actors | Court held Bivens does not apply in this new context; Fourteenth Amendment inapplicable; Complaint dismissed |
| Whether all claims of unlawful searches and seizures at the border are actionable under the existing Bivens Fourth Amendment context | King argued all Fourth Amendment search/seizure claims fall under recognized Bivens actions | Thomas contended this context differs due to border security/national security concerns and special statutory mandates for CBP | Court found CBP searches at international borders represent a new Bivens context and refusal to extend Bivens is mandated |
| Whether special factors (national security, border security, existing legal mandates) preclude a Bivens remedy | King did not address national security or special factors as barriers to relief | Thomas asserted these special factors caution against authorizing Bivens claims against CBP at borders | Court found national security and statutory mandates were special factors precluding any Bivens remedy |
| Applicability of Fourteenth Amendment claims to federal officials | King brought claims under the Fourteenth Amendment in addition to the Fourth | Thomas responded that Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state actors, not federal officials | Court agreed Fourteenth Amendment claims cannot be brought against federal actors |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognized limited damages remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officers)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (Bivens remedy recognizes Fifth Amendment damages for gender discrimination by Congress member)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference by federal prison officials)
- District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418 (Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to actions by federal officials)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (Bivens extension is limited and disfavored; new contexts require caution)
- Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93 (same constitutional provision does not guarantee recognized Bivens context)