������ýapp�ٷ�

In 2014, Robert Boule, an inn owner on the Washington state-Canada border, was shoved to the ground by Customs and Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert. Why? Boule was attempting to defend one of the inn’s guests. Agent Egbert had tailed the guest — a lawful visitor from Turkey — 125 miles from the airport to the inn, where he approached the guest’s car despite Boule’s multiple requests to leave. After Boule complained to Agent Egbert’s superiors, Agent Egbert retaliated by instigating an IRS investigation of Boule’s business. Boule sued for damages based on this unconstitutional retaliation, all the way up to the Supreme Court. 

On January 26, 2022, FIREfiled a brief of amicus curiae in support of Boule and backward-looking damages for First Amendment retaliation. “Where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy,” Supreme Court Justice John Marshall famously opined in 1803. But in recent years, the Supreme Court has chipped away at this bedrock principle, drastically limiting damages claims against federal officials. Given the foundational nature of the First Amendment’s protection, damages should be available when federal officials retaliate against speakers for exercising their expressive rights. 

Unfortunately, on June 8, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled against Boule and held that he could not seek monetary damages for First Amendment retaliation under these circumstances.