Case Citator › Egbert v. Boule

Egbert v. Boule

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
596 U.S. 482
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
90 of 90
Citing cases (total)
977
Treatment dates
2022
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Egbert v. Boule has been fully screened, and its strongest confirmed treatment is criticized: all 90 flagged citations have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. Cohen v. United States of America criticized the constitutional-remedies restriction it was bound to apply under Egbert and related Supreme Court precedent.
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed opinions followed or applied Egbert, rejected adverse party characterizations, reported Egbert's own effect on older Bivens precedents, or used nearby adverse language for unrelated authorities. Criticism in separate concurrences or dissents did not create additional entries.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

977 later cases cite Egbert v. Boule; 90 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Egbert v. Boule?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • While holding itself bound to dismiss the Bivens claims, the district court criticized Egbert's restriction on constitutional damages remedies as doing “profound violence” to constitutional rights and resting on a mistaken proposition.

    Cohen v. United States of America · S.D.N.Y. · filed

    As things currently stand, however, the Supreme Court’s precedents squarely and unequivocally foreclose the Bivens claims here. None of the claims present a direct parallel to Bivens, Passman, or Carlson; even if one did, the Egbert Court has thrown into doubt the availability of the Bivens cause of action for any new claim, particularly where, as here, alternative remedial structures are in place. As such, Cohen’s Bivens claims must be dismissed. Before doing so, however, this Court pauses to reiterate the profound violence this holding does to Cohen’s constitutional rights. ... And those precedents rest on a mistaken proposition—that the Court’s reluctance to imply a damages remedy for statutorily created rights where Congress did not explicitly intend for there to be such a remedy necessarily must extend to a reluctance to find such a remedy for constitutionally guaranteed rights.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Egbert v. Boule and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace