Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 24

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

other  special  factors  that  apply  as  well  to  the  detention
policy claims against all of the petitioners.  First, respond-
ents’ detention policy claims challenge more than standard 
“law  enforcement  operations.”  United  States  v.  Verdugo-
Urquidez,  494  U. S.  259,  273  (1990).    They  challenge  as
well  major  elements  of  the  Government’s  whole  response
to  the  September  11  attacks,  thus  of  necessity  requiring
an inquiry into sensitive issues of national security.  Were 
this  inquiry  to  be  allowed  in  a  private  suit  for  damages,
the  Bivens  action  would  assume  dimensions  far  greater 
than  those  present  in  Bivens  itself,  or  in  either  of  its  two 
follow-on cases, or indeed in any putative Bivens case yet
to come before the Court. 

National-security  policy  is  the  prerogative  of  the  Con-
gress  and  President.  See  U. S.  Const.,  Art. I,  §8;  Art. II, 
§1,  §2.  Judicial  inquiry  into  the  national-security  realm
raises “concerns for the separation of powers in trenching
on matters committed to the other branches.”  Christopher 
v. Harbury, 536 U. S. 403, 417 (2002).  These concerns are 
even more pronounced when the judicial inquiry comes in
the context of a claim seeking money damages rather than
a  claim  seeking  injunctive  or  other  equitable  relief.    The 
risk  of  personal  damages  liability  is  more  likely  to  cause
an official to second-guess difficult but necessary decisions 
concerning national-security policy. 

For  these  and  other  reasons,  courts  have  shown  defer-
ence to what the Executive Branch “has determined . . . is 
‘essential  to  national  security.’ ”  Winter  v.  Natural  Re-
sources  Defense  Council,  Inc.,  555  U. S.  7,  24,  26  (2008). 
Indeed,  “courts  traditionally  have  been  reluctant  to  in-
trude upon the authority of the Executive in military and 
national security affairs” unless “Congress specifically has 
provided  otherwise.”  Department  of  Navy  v.  Egan,  484 
U. S.  518,  530  (1988).    Congress  has  not  provided  other-
wise here. 

There  are  limitations,  of  course,  on  the  power  of  the