Bivens Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 18, 2025
Bottom line
The 'Bivens Act of 2025' statutorily establishes a civil remedy for individuals whose constitutional rights are violated by federal actors, codifying and expanding a judicial doctrine that has been significantly curtailed.
What it actually does
This bill expands the scope of 42 U.S.C. 1983 to allow individuals to sue federal officials for violations of constitutional rights, similar to how state officials can be sued. It explicitly creates a statutory cause of action for claims against federal actors, codifying and expanding what are known as 'Bivens' actions, which currently rely on judicial implication.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is crucial for accountability, ensuring that federal officials are not immune from civil lawsuits when they violate constitutional rights. They contend it closes a critical gap in civil rights enforcement, providing a clear path for redress that the Supreme Court has increasingly restricted.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that expanding such liability could lead to a flood of litigation against federal employees, potentially hindering their ability to perform their duties effectively due to fear of lawsuits. They may also raise concerns about the financial burden on the federal government and the potential for frivolous claims.
The bill is extremely short and easy to read, but understanding its implications requires knowledge of existing federal civil rights law and the 'Bivens' doctrine.
Section 2
Civil Action Against Person Acting Under Federal Authority
This section amends a key civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. 1983) to explicitly allow individuals to sue federal officials for violating their constitutional rights. Currently, this statute primarily applies to state and local officials. By inserting 'of the United States or' before 'of any State,' the bill creates a clear statutory basis for lawsuits against federal actors, codifying and expanding what are known as 'Bivens' actions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for ensuring accountability for federal actors, preventing abuses of power, and providing a necessary avenue for justice when constitutional rights are infringed. They highlight the erosion of judicially created 'Bivens' remedies and the need for Congress to step in.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this expansion could expose federal officials to excessive litigation, potentially chilling their willingness to make difficult decisions or perform their duties vigorously. Concerns about the scope of liability and potential for frivolous lawsuits could also be raised.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for government accountability and individual redress against concerns about potential over-litigation, the burden on federal employees, and the operational efficiency of federal agencies.