Supreme Court Leaves Rancher With No Remedy for BLM Harrassment

In a disappointing opinion authored by Justice Souter, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito, the Supreme Court today held that Mr. Frank Robbins does not have a private action for damages of the sort recognized in Bivens. The Court further held that Mr. Robbins does not have a claim against the Bureau of Land Management employees in their individual capacities.

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stevens, wrote a separate concurring in part and dissenting in part decision, stating:

"The Court has held that the Government may not unnecessarily penalize the exercise of constitutional rights. This principle has been applied, most notably, to protect the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. But it has also been deployed to protect other constitutional guarantees, including the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to trial by a jury, and the right to travel. The principle should apply here too. The constitutional guarantee of just compensation would be worthless if federal agents were permitted to harass and punish landowners who refuse to give up property without it. The Fifth Amendment, therefore, should be read to forbid government action calculated to acquire private property coercively and cost-free, and measures taken in retaliation for the owner's resistance to uncompensated takings."

Wilkie v. Robbins, No. 06-219 (March 25, 2007), Slip Op. at 17-18 (citations omitted).

Printable View