Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

32 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI 

Opinion of the Court 

Were  those  discussions,  and  the  resulting  policies,  to  be
the  basis  for  private  suits  seeking  damages  against  the 
officials  as  individuals,  the  result  would  be  to  chill  the 
interchange  and  discourse  that  is  necessary  for  the  adop-
tion  and  implementation  of  governmental  policies.    See 
Cheney,  542  U. S.,  at  383  (discussing  the  need  for  confi-
dential  communications  among  Executive  Branch  offi-
cials); Merrill, 443 U. S., at 360 (same).

These  considerations  suggest  that  officials  employed  by
the same governmental department do not conspire when 
they  speak  to  one  another  and  work  together  in  their
official capacities.  Whether that contention should prevail
need not be decided here.  It suffices to say that the ques-
tion  is  sufficiently  open  so  that  the  officials  in  this  suit 
could  not  be  certain  that  §1985(3)  was  applicable  to  their
discussions  and  actions.    Thus,  the  law  respondents  seek
to  invoke  cannot  be  clearly  established.    It  follows  that 
reasonable officers in petitioners’ positions would not have
known  with  any  certainty  that  the  alleged  agreements 
were  forbidden  by  law.    See  Saucier,  533  U. S.,  at  202. 
Petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity with respect
to the claims under 42 U. S. C. §1985(3). 

* 

* 

* 
If the facts alleged in the complaint are true, then what
happened to respondents in the days following September 
11  was  tragic.  Nothing  in  this  opinion  should  be  read  to
condone  the  treatment  to  which  they  contend  they  were
subjected.  The question before the Court, however, is not
whether  petitioners’  alleged  conduct  was  proper,  nor 
whether it gave decent respect to respondents’ dignity and 
well-being, nor whether it was in keeping with the idea of 
the rule of law that must inspire us even in times of crisis. 
Instead,  the  question  with  respect  to  the  Bivens  claims 
is  whether  to  allow  an  action  for  money  damages  in  the 
absence  of  congressional  authorization.    For  the  reasons