Term: 2006
Docket: 06-219
Charles Wilkie, Et Al. v. Harvey Frank Robbins
- Pro
06-219 WILKIE V. ROBBINS DECISION BELOW:433 F3d 755 EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. CERT. GRANTED 12/1/2006 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: This case involves a damages action brought against officials of the Bureau of Land Management in their individual capacities based on alleged actions taken within the individuals’ official regulatory responsibilities in attempting to obtain a reciprocal right-of-way across private property intermingled with public lands. The following questions are presented: 1. Whether government officials acting pursuant to their regulatory authority can be guilty under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., of the predicate act of extortion under color of official right for attempting to obtain property for the sole benefit of the government and, if so, whether that statutory prohibition was clearly established. 2. Whether respondent’s Bivens claim based on the exercise of his alleged Fifth Amendment rights is precluded by the availability of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., or other statutes for the kind of administrative actions on which his claim is based. 3. Whether the Fifth Amendment protects against retaliation for exercising a “right to exclude” the government from one’s property outside the eminent domain process and, if so, whether that Fifth Amendment right was clearly established. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-8016
In the case of Charles Wilkie et al. v. Harvey Frank Robbins, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of federal officials who were accused by a private landowner of extortion and harassment over access to his property which was surrounded by federally owned land. The plaintiff, Robbins claimed that Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees demanded an easement through his property without compensation and retaliated against him when he refused their demands with various forms of harassment including trespassing on his land and filing false criminal charges against him. He sued under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), alleging they had conspired to extort an easement from him through a pattern of racketeering activity. However, the court held that BLM officials were acting within their authority even if they may have been overly aggressive or made mistakes in handling disputes with Robbins about rights-of-way across his ranchland; thus not constituting "extortion" as defined under RICO statute. The decision clarified that government officials cannot be sued for damages unless Congress has explicitly authorized such lawsuits - something it did not do for claims like those raised by Robbins.
In the dissenting opinion for Charles Wilkie, et al. v. Harvey Frank Robbins (2006), Justice Ginsburg argued that Robbins should have been allowed to pursue his claim of retaliation by government officials under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). She disagreed with the majority's view that there was no actionable property right involved in this case, asserting instead that Robbins' allegations were sufficient to show a violation of his rights to exclude others from his land and not be subjected to groundless litigation - both recognized as protected property interests. Furthermore, she contended that Bivens actions should extend beyond cases involving Fourth Amendment violations or other specific constitutional protections because they provide an important remedy for individuals whose rights are violated by federal officials acting under color of law.
