Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 53.0

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

9 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

at 550 (emphasis added).

Thus the Court, as the majority opinion says, repeatedly
wrote that it was not “expanding” the scope of the Bivens 
remedy.  Ante,  at  11.    But  the  Court  nowhere  suggested 
that  it  would  narrow  Bivens’  existing  scope.    In  fact,  to 
diminish  any  ambiguity  about  its  holdings,  the  Court  set 
out  a  framework  for  determining  whether  a  claim  of  con-
stitutional violation calls for a Bivens remedy.  See Wilkie, 
supra, at 549–550.  At Step One, the court must determine 
whether  the  case  before  it  arises  in  a  “new  context,”  that 
is,  whether  it  involves  a  “new  category  of  defendants,” 
Malesko,  supra,  at  68,  or  (presumably)  a  significantly 
different  kind  of  constitutional  harm,  such  as  a  purely 
procedural  harm,  a  harm  to  speech,  or  a  harm  caused  to 
physical  property.  If  the  context  is  new,  then  the  court 
proceeds  to  Step  Two  and  asks  “whether  any  alternative, 
existing  process  for  protecting  the  interest  amounts  to  a 
convincing  reason  for  the  Judicial  Branch  to  refrain  from
providing  a  new  and  freestanding  remedy  in  damages.” 
Wilkie,  551  U. S.,  at  550.    If  there  is  none,  then  the  court 
proceeds  to  Step  Three  and  asks  whether  there  are  “ ‘any 
special  factors  counselling  hesitation  before  authorizing  a 
new kind of federal litigation.’ ”  Ibid. 

Precedent  makes  this  framework  applicable  here.  I 
would apply it.  And, doing so, I cannot get past Step One.
This  suit,  it  seems  to  me,  arises  in  a  context  similar  to 
those in which this Court has previously permitted Bivens 
actions. 

B 
1 
The  context  here  is  not  “new,”  Wilkie,  supra,  at  550,  or 
“fundamentally different” than our previous Bivens cases, 
Malesko,  supra,  at  70.    First,  the  plaintiffs  are  civilians, 
not  members  of  the  military.    They  are  not  citizens,  but 
the  Constitution  protects  noncitizens  against  serious