C.D.Cal.: Bivens not extended to ICE workplace arrest

Bivens will not be extended to an ICE workplace arrest, per Egbert. Hernandez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61367 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2026):

Second, the Court declines to extend Bivens to the facts of this case. This case is meaningfully different from Bivens itself. Whereas Bivens involved agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entering the plaintiff’s home without a warrant and arresting him based on alleged narcotics violations, Bivens, 403 U.S. at 389, this case involves unnamed ICE Agents and border patrol officers arresting Petitioner at his workplace on alleged immigration violations. Although Bivens recognized a cause of action for a violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, its facts bear little resemblance to the facts here. Petitioner thus asks this Court to apply Bivens to a new context. See Nunez v. Jones, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174351, 2023 WL 6297362, at *5 (D. Or. May 3, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172676, 2023 WL 6296945 (D. Or. Sept. 27, 2023) (finding plaintiff’s claims meaningfully differed from Bivens because they involved a traffic stop due to suspected immigration violations); Romero, 771 F. Supp. 3d at 1148 (“Because this case differs from Bivens in two notable ways—(1) the interaction between Plaintiff and Defendants occurred near the U.S.-Mexico border, rather than a private residence, and (2) the Federal agents involved are employed by U.S. Customs and Border Protections and the U.S. Marshals, rather than the FBI—Plaintiff’s claims present a new context.”); see also Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 147, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 198 L. Ed. 2d 290 (2017) (“Yet even a modest extension is still an extension.”).

The Supreme Court’s decision in Egbert forecloses our ability to extend Bivens to the facts in this case. …