1, section 27 of the Texas Constitution. They ask us to find a state analog to the federal Bivens-type cause of action. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). In Bivens, the United States Supreme Court recognized an implied private cause of action against a federal agent acting under color of authority who violates an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. 403 U.S. at 389, 91 S.Ct. at 20 ion on the ground of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Figueroa v. Hawaii, 61 Haw. 369, 604 P.2d 1198 (1979) (noting that Tort Liability Act does not make state liable in money damages for violation of state constitution); Smith v. Dept, of Public Health, 428 Mich. 540, 410 N.W.2d 749 (1987) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105
holding that there is no private right of action against a state governmental entity for violations of the texas constitution recognizing exception under state constitution holding that in the absence of an adequate state remedy one whose constitutional rights are violated has a direct claim against the state under the state constitution recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution holding that where it is alleged that state has violated rights conferred by constitution governmental immunity is not available in state court action but declining to infer a right to sue the state for damages on the basis of a violation of the michigan constitution