Wilkie v. Robbins
Wilkie v. Robbins | |
---|---|
![]() U.S. LEXIS 8513; 75 U.S.L.W. 4529; 22 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 695; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 443 | |
Holding | |
Robbins' claims can't be brought under any federal law cause of action. Therefore, he cannot sue the government for retaliation. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Souter, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito; Stevens, Ginsburg (Part III) |
Concurrence | Thomas, joined by Scalia |
Concur/dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Stevens |
Laws applied | |
RICO Act |
Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the scope of qualified immunity for government officials working in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Specifically, the Supreme Court held that BLM employees could not be liable for an alleged retaliation claim against Robbins, a farm owner, because other avenues for relief were available. Though these workers may have been tough in negotiations with Robbins over access over his land, none of that rose to the level of a constitutional violation.
Background
In 1994, Frank Robbins purchased a Wyoming
In 1998, after a series of further conflicts with BLM officials, Robbins filed a lawsuit. He claimed that the BLM actions violated the RICO statute, a law which bars racketeering. Additionally, he argued that the federal officials violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.[1]
The District Court dismissed all of Robbins' claims on the grounds that there were other alternative means of relief, absent a lawsuit. The
Opinion of the Court
Justice David Souter wrote the majority opinion which reversed the Tenth Circuit and held that the BLM agents were not liable for the alleged retaliation.[2]
In reaching that finding, Souter wrote that "we think [that] any damages remedy for actions by Government employees who push too hard for the Government's benefit may come better, if at all, through legislation." The harms of "illegitimate pressure" were simply too ambiguous for courts to handle them. Additionally, Souter rejected the RICO claim, finding that none of the BLM actions could be "generically classified as extortionate."
Thomas' concurrence
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a short concurring opinion,[2] joined by Justice Scalia. While he joined the entirety of Souter's majority opinion, he stressed that attaching liability to government officials' conduct was "a relic of the heady days in which this Court assumed common-law powers to create causes of action."
Ginsburg's dissent
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion, with which Justice John Paul Stevens joined. Ginsburg focused on the Fifth Amendment property issues in the case, arguing that "the Fifth Amendment provide[s] an effective check on federal officers who abuse their regulatory powers by harassing and punishing property owners who refuse to surrender their property to the United States without fair compensation." Therefore, she argued, Robbins had a cause of action against the government and his case should have been allowed to go forward.[1]
See also
References
- ^ a b Somin, Ilya. "Wilkie v. Robbins and the Future of Constitutional Property Rights", "Volokh Conspiracy", June 27, 2007.
- ^ a b Harrow, Jason. "More on Wilkie v. Robbins", "SCOTUSBlog", June 26, 2007.
External links
- Text of Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)