Yet Another Split Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals
Disclosure: I participated in a moot oral argument for the plaintiff-appellee in this case.
In Garraway v. Ciufo, a divided Ninth Circuit held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without a qualified-immunity appeal.
So far the courts of appeals have unanimously rejected the federal government’s efforts to secure immediate Bivens appeals. But these decisions have produced dissents, with judges contending that immediate appeals are warranted due to the interests the Bivens question implicates. And at least one more pending appeal presents this issue. This is probably not the end of the government’s attempts to secure pure Bivens appeals.
For more in-depth discussions of the government’s attempts at pure Bivens appeals, see the posts The Third Circuit Split on Pure Bivens Appeals and Another Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals.
The majority determined that the interests at stake—separation of powers, protecting the efficiency of the Executive Branch—are not irreparably harmed by delaying an appeal. Granted, those interests are important. But they can be protected via qualified-immunity appeals (with which the Bivens question can tag along) or in an appeal after a final judgment. And the Bivens question does not implicate an avoidance-of-litigation interest like qualified immunity.
In short, there was “no right permanently destroyed” nor sufficiently important “harm irreparably done.” The only irreparable harm was “litigation burdensome to government officials.” And that doesn’t warrant an immediate appeal.
Judge Bumatay dissented. Like prior dissents on this issue, he contended that delayed review of the Bivens question threatens “a substantial public interest”: separation-of-powers problems that affect all three branches of government. He suggested that barring Bivens remedies is necessary to protect federal officials from the burdens of litigation. He even contended that “the threat of any impact on the executive branch from Bivens liability cries out for immediate review.”
There’s at least one more pending appeal presenting this issue. But given the persistence with which the government is pushing this issue, I won’t be surprised to see more.
Garraway v. Ciufo, 2024 WL 4020022 (9th Cir. Sep. 3, 2024), available at the Ninth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
The federal government appears to be on a mission to get immediate appeals for orders recognizing a Bivens remedy. So far, those efforts have been unsuccessful. Two courts of appeals—the Third and the Sixth Circuits—have rejected these pure Bivens appeals. In Mohamed v. Jones, the Tenth Circuit became the third. Like the Third and Sixth […]
Continue reading....
In Graber v. Doe II, a panel of the Third Circuit split on whether federal officials could immediately appeal the Bivens question without a qualified-immunity appeal. It’s the second decision in recent memory to reject a pure Bivens appeal. And this time, at least one judge was willing to hold that the Bivens issue was […]
Continue reading....
In Pettibone v. Russell, the Ninth Circuit categorically held that it could address the Bivens question as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. In the course of doing so, the court rejected its older cases holding to the contrary.
Continue reading....
The Bivens question asks whether a damages action exists for a federal official’s unconstitutional conduct. In Wilkie v. Robbins, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals can address the Bivens question as part of an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity. But the Bivens question standing alone has not been deemed immediately appealable. […]
Continue reading....
The Bivens question asks whether an implied constitutional remedy exists for a federal official’s unconstitutional conduct. The Supreme Court has held that this question is within the scope of a qualified-immunity appeal. That is, in an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, the court of appeals can address whether a Bivens remedy exists. […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
A new cert petition asks whether the denial of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
Continue reading....
Disclosure: I filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of rehearing its decision in this case and discussed the cert petition with the petitioner’s counsel. Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Parrish v. United States. The case asks if a would-be appellant must file a second notice of appeal after […]
Continue reading....
I’m thrilled to announce the creation of Final Decisions PLLC, an appellate boutique and consultancy focused on appellate jurisdiction. Through it, I hope to partner with lawyers facing complex appellate-jurisdiction issues. Almost six years ago, I started the Final Decisions blog as a way to keep on top of developments in the world of appellate […]
Continue reading....
In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]
Continue reading....
In Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.
Continue reading....