Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 27

22 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI 

Opinion of the Court 

lawful custody, it is arguable that habeas corpus will lie to
remove the restraints making custody illegal”). 

Indeed, the habeas remedy, if necessity required its use,
would  have  provided  a  faster  and  more  direct  route  to
relief than a suit for money damages.  A successful habeas 
petition would have required officials to place respondents 
in  less-restrictive  conditions  immediately;  yet  this  dam-
ages suit remains unresolved some 15 years later.  (As in 
Bell  and  Preiser,  the  Court  need  not  determine  the  scope
or  availability  of  the  habeas  corpus  remedy,  a  question
that  is  not  before  the  Court  and  has  not  been  briefed  or 
argued.)  In sum, respondents had available to them “ ‘other 
alternative  forms  of  judicial  relief.’ ”    Minneci,  565  U. S., 
at 124.  And when alternative methods of relief are avail-
able, a Bivens remedy usually is not.  See Bush, 462 U. S., 
at  386–388;  Schweiker,  supra,  at  425–426;  Malesko,  534 
U. S., at 73–74; Minneci, supra, at 125–126. 

There  is  a  persisting  concern,  of  course,  that  absent  a 
Bivens  remedy  there  will  be  insufficient  deterrence  to
prevent  officers  from  violating  the  Constitution.    In  cir-
cumstances like those presented here, however, the stakes
on both sides of the argument are far higher than in past 
cases the Court has considered.  If Bivens liability were to
be  imposed,  high  officers  who  face  personal  liability  for 
damages  might  refrain  from  taking  urgent  and  lawful
action in a time of crisis.  And, as already noted, the costs
and  difficulties  of  later  litigation  might  intrude  upon  and 
interfere with the proper exercise of their office.

On the other side of the balance, the very fact that some
executive actions have the sweeping potential to affect the
liberty of so many is a reason to consider proper means to
impose restraint and to provide some redress from injury.
There is therefore a balance to be struck, in situations like 
this  one,  between  deterring  constitutional  violations  and 
freeing  high  officials  to  make  the  lawful  decisions  neces-
sary  to  protect  the  Nation  in  times  of  great  peril.  Cf.