Morris Davis v. James Billington
401 U.S. App. D.C. 46
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Davis, a former Assistant Director for CRS at the Library of Congress, was probationary for one year.
- Davis publicly criticized Guantanamo military-commission procedures in multiple fora before publication of op-eds in 2009.
- Shortly after publication, Mulhollan, Davis’s CRS director, questioned Davis’s judgment and objectivity by email.
- Davis was removed from his CRS position on November 20, 2009 and reassigned as special advisor, then separated.
- Davis filed suit alleging First and Fifth Amendment violations and sought Bivens damages against Mulhollan and other Librarian/CRS officials.
- The district court denied Mulhollan’s motion to dismiss; on appeal, the court held no Bivens remedy exists and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSRA is a comprehensive remedial scheme precluding Bivens | Davis falls outside LC’s programmers; CSRA preclusion applies | CSRA is a comprehensive scheme that forecloses Bivens claims for civil-service actions | CSRA constitutes a comprehensive remedial scheme precluding Bivens |
| Whether Congressional Accountability Act precludes a Bivens claim here | C.A.A. does not address constitutional claims of Library employees; does not preclude | CAA precludes the asserted remedies for congressional employment claims | CAA does not preclude a Bivens action in this context |
| Whether Davis’s probationary status affects Bivens availability | Probationary status should not negate potential Bivens relief given congressional judgment | probationary status aligns with CSRA exclusions from remedies; no Bivens | Unable to determine at this stage; remand for fact-finding on immunity and remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (Supreme Court 1971) (establishes Bivens damages action for constitutional violations against federal officers)
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (Supreme Court 1983) (comprehensive remedial schemes foreclose new Bivens actions for federal employees)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (Supreme Court 1988) (limits on creating new Bivens remedies when a statutory scheme exists)
- Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc holding that CSRA can foreclose Bivens for executive-branch claims)
- Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (comprehensive remedial scheme analysis extends to privacy/eligibility determinations)
- Keeffe v. Library of Congress, 777 F.2d 1576 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (due process notice in applying Library policies outside-speech provisions)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (Supreme Court 1979) (Congressional personnel claims and remedies context for Bivens exclusions)
- Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (Supreme Court 1987) (speech protections for public officials and the boundaries of protected activity)