Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1529.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  559 U. S. ____ (2010) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

. . .  brought  for  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United States.”  §2679(b)(2)(A).  The Westfall Act’s explicit 
exception  for  Bivens  claims  is  powerful  evidence  that
Congress  did  not  understand  the  exclusivity  provided  by
§2679(b)(1)—or  the  substantially  similar  §233(a)—to 
imply  such  an  exception.    Given  Congress’  awareness  of 
pre-existing  immunity  provisions  like  §233  when  it  en-
acted  the  Westfall  Act,  see  United  States  v.  Smith,  499 
U. S. 160, 173 (1991), it is telling that Congress declined to
enact  a  similar  exception  to  the  immunity  provided  by
§233(a). 

B 
In advocating a contrary reading of §233(a), respondents 
rely heavily on our opinion in Carlson, as did the Court of 
Appeals.  Carlson,  however,  is  inapposite  to  the  issue  in 
this  case.  There  are  two  separate  inquiries  involved  in
determining whether a Bivens action may proceed against 
a  federal  agent:  whether  the  agent  is  amenable  to  suit, 
and whether a damages remedy is available for a particu-
lar  constitutional  violation  absent  authorization  by  Con-
gress.  See  United  States  v.  Stanley,  483  U. S.  669,  684 
(1987)  (“[T]he  availability  of  a  damages  action  under  the 
Constitution  for  particular  injuries  . . .  is  a  question  logi-
cally distinct from immunity to such an action on the part
of  particular  defendants”).  Even  in  circumstances  in 
which  a  Bivens  remedy  is  generally  available,  an  action
under Bivens will be defeated if the defendant is immune 
from suit.  See, e.g., 403 U. S., at 397–398 (remanding for 
determination  of  respondents’  immunity  after  implying  a
cause of action under the Fourth Amendment).

Because  petitioners  in  Carlson  invoked  no  official  im-
munity, the Court did not address that question.  Instead, 
it  considered  whether  a  remedy  was  available  under  the
Eighth Amendment for alleged violations of the Cruel and 
Unusual  Punishments  Clause  notwithstanding  that  a