11th Circuit: No Bivens Remedy for Free Exercise Infringement by Government Contractor or Its Employees

 In Walker v. Dismas Charities, Inc., (11th Cir., Nov. 14,2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Free Exercise and 8th Amendment claims by an inmate serving part of his sentence for conspiracy to commit arson in home confinement. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert v. Boule, the court concluded that there is no Bivens implied damages remedy under the Constitution in a suit against a corporate entity that has contracted with the government to supervise federal prisoners serving their federal criminal sentences in home detention....  The court also rejected the claim that a Bivens remedy lies against employees of the government contractor, saying in part:

Walker’s complaint seeks to extend the implied remedy against federal officials first recognized in Bivens to a new class of defendants: individual employees of government contractors. On top of that, he asks us to recognize an implied cause of action under the Constitution to claims brought by a person in home confinement as part of a federal criminal sentence alleging violations of his right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, his right to procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment, and his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Because “a court is not undoubtedly better positioned than Congress to create” such a damages remedy, we conclude that Walker does not have an implied cause of action under the Constitution for his constitutional claims....

Damage Claim For Denying Lincoln Memorial Religious Demonstration Permit Dismissed

In Ferguson v. Owen, (D DC, July 8, 2022), a D.C. federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a suit for damages against the head of the National Park Service Division of Permits Management for refusing plaintiff a permit for a 4-month long demonstration at the Lincoln Memorial.  He was offered a permit to demonstrate at the Korean War Veterans Memorial site. Plaintiff, a street musician, wanted to convey a religious/ political message.  The court rejected plaintiff's RFRA claim, finding that the denial had not imposed a substantial burden on his religious exercise, saying in part:

Must an individual have a central religious belief that requires demonstrating at the Lincoln Memorial in order for the denial of permit applications to demonstrate at the Lincoln Memorial—accompanied by the approval of permit applications to demonstrate at nearby locations—to constitute a substantial burden under RFRA? The answer to this question is yes.

The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim, refusing to extend implied Bivens causes of action to this type of claim.

No Bivens Claim For Interference With Religious Exercise In Puerto Rican Forest

In Twum-Baah v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, (D PR, March 12, 2018), a Puerto Rico federal district court dismissed Federal Tort Claims Act, free exercise and racial/ ethnic discrimination claims by a representative of the Waroyal Ministry who took his congregation to the El Yunque National Forest as part of their worship. He also started a tour company that offered tours in El Yunque. Federal officials assert that plaintiff needs a special use authorization for his activities. The court said in part:

A liberal reading of plaintiff’s amended complaint suggests Twum-Baah claims officers Verdejo, Ortiz, and Henderon violated his First Amendment rights to freely exercise his religion and to peaceably assemble with the Excursionist Association for El Yunque. ... Nonetheless, the Court’s understanding of Bivens and subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court compels it to find Bivens claims are not available for violations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause.

No Damage Remedy Available To Muslims Placed On No-Fly List For Retaliatory Reasons

In Tanvir v. Lynch, (SD NY, Sept. 3, 2015), Muslim plaintiffs sued claiming that when they refused to become FBI informants, partly because doing so would violate their religious beliefs, the government retaliated by placing them on the No-Fly List.  Subsequently they were removed from the list, but continued to pursue claims for damages.  The court held that it will not extend a Bivens  damage remedy to this new context, and that RFRA does not provide for money damages against federal officers in their personal capacities. The Center for Constitutional Rights issued a press release reacting to the decision.