Secret Service Defeats Citizen Journalist’s Damages Suit Appeal

The US Secret Service won a federal appeals court ruling affirming dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a citizen journalist who said he was handcuffed and detained after he wouldn’t stop filming through their Washington building’s open garage door.

Tobias Jones routinely records Washington law enforcement activity, according to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling issued Tuesday. From a sidewalk in 2019, he pointed his camera inside the building until one agent told him to point it elsewhere. Another agent later arrived and asked Jones for ID, which he refused to present. The second agent, Sergeant Travas Holland, cuffed and searched him.

Then, a third officer arrived and said Jones had a right to continue filming, after which he was released, the court said. In 2022, Jones sued the service, Holland, and the first agent, James Fisher, alleging they’d violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights, seeking damages and related relief. The lower court rejected those claims.

The damages claims depended on the scope of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the appellate court said citing a 1971 Supreme Court case that held the Fourth Amendment contained an implied cause of action for that relief. The ability to be covered under Bivens, however, turned upon whether the case presented Bivens context not previously recognized.

“If a claim arises in a new context, a Bivens remedy is unavailable if there are special factors indicating that the Judiciary is at least arguably less equipped than Congress to weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed,” Judge Justin R Walker wrote for the court.

Jones’ Fourth Amendment damages claims differ from the claim in Bivens, and the court “cannot extend Bivens to this new context,” Walker said.

Extension Declined

This case is meaningfully different from Bivens because it creates a greater risk of judicial intrusion into the Executive Branch, the judge said. The law enforcement activity in Bivens “materially differs from the protective activity of guarding a federal building from perceived threats,” which is what the Secret Service agents were doing in this case, he said.

In 45 years, the Supreme Court “has consistently declined to extend Bivens to new contexts,” having declined to imply it 11 times as a cause of action for other alleged constitutional violations.

Walker said the context in Jones’ case was new and would only proceed if Bivens were extended. The three-judge panel declined to do so, explaining it created the risk of intrusion into the Executive Branch because Fisher and Holland were protecting the federal building from a perceived threat, whereas Bivens’ officers weren’t protecting their space, but rather intruding into his. And the Supreme Court has never extended Bivens to the First Amendment, it said, affirming the district court’s holding that Jones lacks standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

“The Supreme Court has recognized that creating implied causes of action under Bivens is a disfavored judicial activity,” Walker said. “For that reason, the Court has set a high bar for plaintiffs like Jones,” who failed to clear it.

Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judge Harry T. Edwards joined in Walker’s ruling.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP represented Jones. The US Department of Justice represented the Secret Service and its agents.

The case is Tobias Jones v. United States Secret Service, D.C. Cir., No. 1:22-cv-00962, 7/15/25.