Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

factor  counselling  hesitation,”  a  factor  must  cause  a 
court  to  hesitate  before  answering  that  question  in  the 
affirmative. 

It  is  not  necessarily  a  judicial  function  to  establish
whole  categories  of  cases  in  which  federal  officers  must
defend  against  personal  liability  claims  in  the  complex 
sphere  of  litigation,  with  all  of  its  burdens  on  some  and 
benefits  to  others.    It  is  true  that,  if  equitable  remedies
prove  insufficient,  a  damages  remedy  might  be  necessary
to redress past harm and deter future violations.  Yet the 
decision  to  recognize  a  damages  remedy  requires  an  as-
sessment  of  its  impact  on  governmental  operations  sys-
temwide.  Those  matters  include  the  burdens  on  Govern-
ment  employees  who  are  sued  personally,  as  well  as  the
projected costs and consequences to the Government itself 
when  the  tort  and  monetary  liability  mechanisms  of  the 
legal  system  are  used  to  bring  about  the  proper  formula-
tion  and  implementation  of  public  policies.    These  and 
other considerations may make  it less probable that Con-
gress  would  want  the  Judiciary  to  entertain  a  damages
suit in a given case.

Sometimes there will be doubt because the case arises in 
a  context  in  which  Congress  has  designed  its  regulatory 
authority  in  a  guarded  way,  making  it  less  likely  that 
Congress  would  want  the  Judiciary  to  interfere.    See 
Chappell,  supra,  at  302  (military);  Stanley,  supra,  at  679 
(same); Meyer, supra, at 486 (public purse); Wilkie, supra, 
at  561–562  (federal  land).  And  sometimes  there  will  be 
doubt  because  some  other  feature  of  a  case—difficult  to 
predict in advance—causes a court to pause  before acting
without  express  congressional  authorization.    In  sum,  if 
there  are  sound  reasons  to  think  Congress  might  doubt
the  efficacy  or  necessity  of  a  damages  remedy  as  part  of
the  system  for  enforcing  the  law  and  correcting  a  wrong,
the courts must refrain from creating the remedy in order
to  respect  the  role  of  Congress  in  determining  the  nature