A Bivens Action is a type of federal lawsuit that allows individuals to seek damages directly against federal officers who violate their constitutional rights.

For immigrants, this legal remedy can be particularly important in cases of abuse or misconduct by agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Understanding how Bivens actions work and the inherent limitations they carry is crucial for anyone who has suffered at the hands of federal officers while in the United States.

 

Who Can File a Bivens Lawsuit?

Any person inside the United States – citizen, lawful permanent resident, asylum seeker, or undocumented immigrant — can potentially file a Bivens lawsuit if their constitutional rights are violated by a federal officer. Courts have clarified that non-citizens are entitled to constitutional protections while present in the U.S., and they may use Bivens to enforce those rights.

The key requirement is that the defendant is an individual federal officer acting under “color of federal law.” This might include:

• ICE officers during an arrest or raid.

• FBI agents conducting searches.

• CBP agents at or near the border.

• Federal prison or detention officers.

Importantly, you cannot sue the federal agency itself (e.g., ICE or CBP) under Bivens. The lawsuit targets the officer in their individual capacity, though in many cases the government may indemnify (pay damages on behalf of) its officers.

What Rights Can Be Protected?

The Supreme Court has recognized only a few categories where Bivens claims are valid:

• Fourth Amendment – Unreasonable searches and seizures. This covers unlawful arrests, warrantless entries, and excessive use of force.

• Fifth Amendment – Equal protection and due process violations. An example is discrimination or wrongful detention.

• Eighth Amendment – Cruel and unusual punishment. This often arises in cases involving denial of medical care to detainees or prisoners.

In these areas, immigrants have successfully brought claims against federal officers who mistreated them. For example:

• A detainee denied timely medical care for a serious infection.

• An ICE officer using excessive force during an arrest, causing injuries.

• A lawful permanent resident unlawfully held in detention despite proof of their status.

Outside these recognized categories, the courts are becoming more and more reluctant to extend Bivens to new situations. Recent Supreme Court rulings, such as Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) and Egbert v. Boule (2022), have made it harder to expand Bivens remedies, especially in cases involving national security, immigration enforcement policy, or foreign affairs.

Proof Needed in a Bivens Action

Naturalized citizens – particularly those who immigrated under difficult circumstances or whose To move forward with a Bivens claim, the plaintiff (victim) must generally prove:

1. Constitutional Violation: The officer’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.
2. Federal Action: The misconduct was committed by a federal officer acting under official authority.
3. Damages: The misconduct caused real harm, which may include physical injury, emotional distress, or loss of liberty.
4. No Alternative Remedy: There is no other adequate legal remedy available.

If successful, a Bivens lawsuit can result in compensatory damages (to cover medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering). Sometimes, it will also address punitive damages (to punish and deter misconduct). 

Expect a Strong Defense

Federal officers almost always raise qualified immunity as a defense. This doctrine shields officers from liability unless they violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time. In practice, this makes many Bivens cases challenging.

For example, if an officer’s actions fall into a “gray area” where the law is unsettled, a court may dismiss the case on immunity grounds even if the officer acted wrongfully.

Because of these defenses, the way your case is argued and presented is crucial. Having the best immigration attorneys who understand both immigration law and constitutional litigation is key to overcoming these obstacles.

How a Bivens Lawsuit Differs From Other Legal Avenues

While a Bivens action is unique, there are other legal approaches that might better apply:

• Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): This allows victims to sue the U.S. government itself for torts like assault, negligence, or wrongful death caused by federal employees. However, you must first file an administrative claim with the agency, and punitive damages are not available.

• Section 1983 Lawsuits: These are similar to Bivens but apply only to state and local officials, not federal officers.

• Internal Complaints: Agencies like ICE and CBP have internal complaint systems, though these rarely provide direct compensation.

In many cases, attorneys will evaluate whether to file both a Bivens action and an FTCA claim together, maximizing the chances of recovery.

Why A Bivens Action Still Matters for Immigrants

Immigrants often face unique vulnerabilities when interacting with federal law enforcement. Detention settings, border interactions, and immigration raids create high-risk situations where constitutional violations are more likely to occur.

Without Bivens, many victims of federal officer misconduct would have no path to seek damages for the harm they suffered. While the scope of Bivens is narrow, it remains a vital tool for accountability and justice.

If you believe your constitutional rights have been violated by a federal officer, time is critical. Statutes of limitations – usually one to three years, depending on the state – can bar your claim if you wait too long. Unlike FTCA claims, Bivens lawsuits do not require you to exhaust administrative remedies before filing, so you can go directly to federal court.

Gathering evidence early is of utmost importance. Documenting injuries and consulting with an attorney who understands both immigration and constitutional law are essential steps in building a strong case.

Fighting a Pitched Battle – U.S. Citizens File Multi-Million Dollar Claims

According to ICE’s own fiscal reports, its litigation division is defending more than 350 tort claims nationwide, with plaintiffs collectively seeking over $55.5 billion in damages. Yet, as of 2023, the agency had paid out less than $1 million in settlements.

Attorneys argue the pattern is clear: ICE agents frequently resort to unnecessary force when questioned or confronted. DHS, however, maintains that agents are authorized to use physical force when “objectively reasonable” under their guidelines.

Keep up to date – Legal Recourse in 2026

In 2026, bringing a Bivens action against agents remains a legal pathway that has been severely restricted by recent Supreme Court precedents. 

The Supreme Court has increasingly narrowed the scope of Bivens, making it difficult to apply to “new contexts,” which the courts frequently interpret to include immigration enforcement. 

Alternatives to Consider instead of a Bivens Action

State-Level and Legislative Developments

Because federal Bivens claims have been so weakened, several states and members of Congress are pursuing alternatives as of January 2026: 

• California Proposed Law: On January 13, 2026, California lawmakers proposed a bill that would allow people to sue ICE agents for civil rights violations under state law, aiming to bypass federal Bivens restrictions.

• Illinois Bivens Act: Illinois has passed similar protections to provide state-law damage causes of action against federal officials.

• Federal Legislation: The NOEM Act was introduced in December 2025 to amend civil rights law (Section 1983) to explicitly include federal immigration officers, potentially creating a statutory path for lawsuits that Bivens no longer reliably provides. 

Alternative: Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)

Since Bivens is often unavailable, legal experts recommend the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) as a more viable pathway for relief. 

• Target: You sue the United States government rather than the individual officer.

• Claims: Covers torts like assault, battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.

• Process: Requires first filing an administrative claim with the Department of Homeland Security before a lawsuit can proceed. 

We’re Here to Help

The right to citizenship should not be subject to instability, political whims, or bureaucratic overreach. At McBean Law, we are deeply committed to defending the rights of naturalized Americans facing this political crossfire. Simultaneously, we believe the government must uphold fundamental and universally acknowledged constitutional principles.If you’re facing a denaturalization threat – or simply want peace of mind – contact us today for a confidential consultation. 

At McBean Law, we help clients nationwide navigate the complex world of U.S. immigration law with confidence, compassion, and clarity. Led by Attorney LaToya McBean Pompy, a nationally recognized immigration attorney and 2024, 2025, & 2026 honoree of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, McBean Law brings unmatched experience in both federal policy and courtroom advocacy. Before founding the firm in 2016, Attorney McBean Pompy worked in various roles within the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Congress, and both federal and state courts.  

Schedule a consultation with us by calling (914) 898-9488 to get experienced legal support for your immigration journey. Follow us on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook for more resources and updates.      

 

FAQs: 

1. Is there a time limit to file a Bivens action?

Yes. Bivens lawsuits must be filed within the personal injury statute of limitations of the state where the violation occurred, usually between one and three years.

The Bivens action comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971). In that case, federal narcotics officers unlawfully entered Webster Bivens’ home, searched it, and arrested him without a warrant. The Court ruled that even without a specific statute authorizing lawsuits against federal officers, the Constitution itself implied a damages remedy. This groundbreaking decision created a pathway for individuals to sue federal officers personally for constitutional violations, much like lawsuits that can be filed against state officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

4. Can you sue ICE for excessive force?

Yes, you can sue ICE for excessive force, but it depends on the circumstances and the legal avenue pursued. Direct lawsuits against ICE as an agency are generally barred by sovereign immunity, but you may bring a claim against individual agents under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) or, in limited cases, a Bivens action for constitutional violations. To succeed, you must show that the agents used unreasonable force in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. These cases are complex and often require substantial evidence, such as medical records, witness statements, or video footage. Consulting an attorney experienced in both immigration and civil rights law is essential to determine the best course of action.

5. Can ICE violence caught on camera be featured among the evidence in a new lawsuit?

Yes, video footage of ICE violence can be used as key evidence in a new lawsuit. Such recordings can help establish what occurred, identify the agents involved, and support claims of excessive force, civil rights violations, or negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Courts generally accept video evidence if it’s authentic, relevant, and properly preserved. However, it’s important to have the footage reviewed and handled by an attorney to ensure it’s admissible and doesn’t violate privacy or evidentiary rules.