3 Supreme Court decisions since 2017 The court restricted the federal right to sue federal agents in Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017), Hernandez v. Mesa (2020), and Egbert v. Boule (2022). Vermont created a state door after the federal one was closed.
The Federal Door Is Nearly Closed
In 1971, the Supreme Court established Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, creating the right to sue federal officials who violate constitutional rights. For five decades, it was the primary legal check on federal agents who use excessive force or conduct unlawful searches.
The court has spent the last seven years dismantling it. Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) ruled Bivens applies only in narrow, longstanding contexts. Hernandez v. Mesa (2020) refused to extend it to a cross-border shooting by a Border Patrol agent.
Egbert v. Boule (2022) went further, signaling that Bivens will not expand to any new context and may not survive at all.
The practical effect: a federal agent who conducts an illegal search, uses excessive force, or detains someone without legal basis faces almost no civil liability in most circumstances. The constitutional violation happens. The accountability does not.
What Vermont Did
In late April 2026, Vermont Governor Phil Scott, a Republican, allowed H.849 to become law without his signature. The bill creates a state cause of action allowing Vermont residents to sue federal officials for excessive use of force, illegal searches and seizures, and other constitutional violations.
Scott’s approach mirrors what Governor Moore did with Maryland’s Community Trust Act that same spring. Neither signed. Neither vetoed.
Both let protective legislation take effect while maintaining political distance from it.
The Vermont law fills the gap that the Supreme Court created. Where federal courts have largely closed the door to Bivens claims, Vermont’s state courts are now open. Federal agents operating in Vermont, including ICE, FBI, and Border Patrol, face exposure they do not face in most other states.
Why This Matters Beyond Vermont
Vermont is one state. The agents it covers are federal. ICE and FBI agents do not operate only where they face accountability.
A Border Patrol agent who commits an unlawful search in Texas faces different legal exposure than one in Vermont, because Congress has not acted.
That asymmetry is the problem. Bivens was judge-made law, and the same court that created it has nearly eliminated it. Restoring accountability for federal agents requires an act of Congress, not an individual state law. Vermont’s law is a model, not a solution.
States that want similar protections have to pass their own legislation and defend it. States that do not pass anything leave their residents with no civil recourse when a federal agent violates their rights.
What You Can Do
-
Contact your members of Congress and ask them to pass legislation restoring a federal cause of action against federal officials who violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Vermont should not have to do this alone. Send the letter above →
-
If you are in Vermont and a federal agent has violated your rights, contact the Vermont ACLU or the National Police Accountability Project. H.849 gives you access to state courts.
-
If you are not in Vermont, check whether your state has any equivalent civil rights protections against federal agents. The ACLU national office tracks these laws by state.
-
Read the Rule of Law hub for the full scope of accountability gaps, court cases, and legal challenges since January 2025.