Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

10 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI 

Opinion of the Court 

specific procedures and times for considering its terms and 
the proper means for its enforcement.  It is logical, then, to
assume that Congress will be explicit if it intends to create 
a  private  cause  of  action.    With  respect  to  the  Constitu-
tion,  however,  there  is  no  single,  specific  congressional 
action to consider and interpret.

Even  so,  it  is  a  significant  step  under  separation-of-
powers  principles  for  a  court  to  determine  that  it  has  the 
authority, under the judicial power, to create and enforce a 
cause  of  action  for  damages  against  federal  officials  in
order  to  remedy  a  constitutional  violation.    When  deter-
mining  whether  traditional  equitable  powers  suffice  to 
give  necessary  constitutional  protection—or  whether,  in 
addition,  a  damages  remedy  is  necessary—there  are  a
number  of  economic  and  governmental  concerns  to  con- 
sider.  Claims  against  federal  officials  often  create  sub- 
stantial costs, in the form of defense and indemnification. 
Congress,  then,  has  a  substantial  responsibility  to  deter-
mine  whether,  and  the  extent  to  which,  monetary  and
other liabilities should be imposed upon individual officers 
and  employees  of  the  Federal  Government.    In  addition, 
the  time  and  administrative  costs  attendant  upon  intru-
sions  resulting  from  the  discovery  and  trial  process  are 
significant factors to be considered.  In an analogous con-
text, Congress, it is fair to assume, weighed those concerns 
in deciding not to substitute the Government as defendant 
in suits seeking damages for constitutional violations.  See 
28  U. S. C.  §2679(b)(2)(A)  (providing  that  certain  provi-
sions  of  the  Federal  Tort  Claims  Act  do  not  apply  to  any
claim  against  a  federal  employee  “which  is  brought  for  a
violation of the Constitution”). 

For  these  and  other  reasons,  the  Court’s  expressed
caution as to implied causes of actions under congressional
statutes  led  to  similar  caution  with  respect  to  actions  in 
the Bivens  context, where the action is implied to enforce 
the  Constitution  itself.    Indeed,  in  light  of  the  changes  to