Tanvir v. Lynch
128 F. Supp. 3d 756
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Four plaintiffs (U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, all Muslim) allege FBI agents sought to recruit them as informants after 9/11 and retaliated when they refused by placing or keeping them on the No Fly List, causing repeated denials of boarding and travel harms.
- Plaintiffs sued federal officials in both official and personal capacities: official-capacity claims seek injunctive/declaratory relief under the First and Fifth Amendments, APA, and RFRA; personal-capacity claims seek compensatory and punitive damages from individual agents under the First Amendment and RFRA.
- The Government revised DHS/TSA redress (TRIP) procedures and DHS later told the plaintiffs it knew of no reason they should be unable to fly; plaintiffs consented to a stay of official-capacity claims.
- The opinion resolves a motion to dismiss brought by most individual agents, addressing whether plaintiffs may recover money damages from agents in their personal capacities under Bivens or RFRA.
- The court concludes Bivens cannot be extended to this new context (First Amendment/watch-list retaliation and travel burdens) because Congress has provided an alternative remedial scheme (TRIP and judicial review) and because Bivens extensions are disfavored.
- The court also holds RFRA’s grant of “appropriate relief” does not create a personal-capacity money-damages remedy against federal agents; RFRA restored a substantive standard but did not enlarge remedies to include Bivens-type damages against individual federal officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of a Bivens remedy for alleged First Amendment (retaliation/free exercise/speech/association) injuries tied to No Fly List placement and travel burdens | Bivens should be extended to allow money damages against agents who allegedly used the No Fly List to retaliate for refusal to inform; existing remedies are inadequate for monetary relief | Bivens should not be extended to this new context; courts should defer to Congress, and an alternative remedial scheme (TRIP and judicial review) exists | Denied. Court refuses to extend Bivens to this context because it is a new context and Congress provided an alternative remedial scheme (TRIP/§46110) making Bivens inappropriate |
| Whether the TRIP/ statutory remedial scheme is sufficient to preclude a Bivens remedy | Plaintiffs: TRIP does not provide money damages against agents, so Bivens is needed to provide full relief | Defendants: Existence of TRIP and statutory judicial review is sufficient; remedies need not be identical or provide damages to foreclose Bivens | Held for defendants: alternative remedies (administrative TRIP and judicial review) preclude implying a Bivens remedy |
| Whether RFRA’s phrase “appropriate relief” authorizes personal-capacity money damages against federal agents | Plaintiffs: RFRA’s private right of action and open-ended “appropriate relief” supports damages against officials in their personal capacities | Defendants: “Appropriate relief” is ambiguous; RFRA restored pre-Smith standards but did not change available remedies to create Bivens-like damages against individuals; legislative history and statutory drafting show no intent to authorize such damages | Denied. Court holds RFRA’s “appropriate relief” does not include personal-capacity money damages against federal agents; historic remedial scheme preserved |
| Whether RFRA’s remedial language should be interpreted by the Franklin presumption to include all remedies (including damages) | Plaintiffs invoke Franklin to presume remedies unless Congress said otherwise | Defendants: Franklin addressed implied causes of action; RFRA contains an express private right and ambiguous remedial language requiring traditional statutory interpretation and consideration of purpose/legislative history | Held for defendants: Franklin presumption inapplicable; statutory purpose and history indicate Congress did not intend RFRA to create personal-capacity damages against federal officers |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy against federal officers in a Fourth Amendment context)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (personal-capacity suits seek individual liability; sovereign immunity principles differ between official and personal capacity suits)
- Turkmen v. Hasty, 789 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2015) (refusal to extend Bivens to new contexts; analysis of rights injured and mechanism of injury; alternative remedies significant)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (interpretation of ambiguous “appropriate relief” language; may not clearly include money damages)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (recognition that RFRA permits injunctive relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court has declined to extend Bivens to First Amendment claims)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (courts should be cautious in creating new Bivens causes of action; Congressional primacy)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (existence of statutory remedial scheme can preclude implication of Bivens-type remedy)
- Malesko v. Corr. Servs. Corp., 534 U.S. 61 (limited extension of Bivens and reluctance to imply new causes of action)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (addressing elements of retaliatory-prosecution suits; did not decide Bivens availability for First Amendment retaliation)