Blankenship v. Holder

Don Blankenship, former CEO of Massey Energy, filed a federal civil lawsuit against former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and former U.S. Attorney R. Booth Goodwin. Blankenship alleged that his 2015 conviction for conspiring to violate mine safety standards, following the 2010 Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, was the result of a vindictive and selective prosecution. He claimed federal officials violated his constitutional rights under the First and Fifth Amendments by retaliating against his political speech and failing to provide due process. The lawsuit sought monetary damages under the Bivens doctrine, requiring the court to examine whether such a remedy extended to high-profile regulatory prosecutions and whether the former officials retained qualified immunity from civil liability.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. The court ruled that Holder and Goodwin were protected by qualified immunity and held that Blankenship's claims were barred by Supreme Court precedent limiting the expansion of Bivens remedies to new contexts involving federal prosecutorial decisions.

Whether the federal defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from a Bivens claim alleging selective and vindictive prosecution, and whether the Bivens legal remedy should be expanded to cover alleged constitutional violations arising from complex regulatory criminal cases.

The ruling reinforced the high bar for challenging prosecutorial discretion in corporate crime cases. It highlighted the significant legal protections afforded to federal officials under qualified immunity and underscored the judiciary's reluctance to expand Bivens remedies, sparking debate about accountability for alleged government misconduct in high-profile regulatory prosecutions.