Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 40

2 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

Fifth  Amendment  violations.  It  also  correctly  recognizes 
that  respondents’  claims  against  petitioner  Dennis  Hasty 
seek to extend Bivens to a new context.  See ante, at 24. 

I concur in the judgment of the Court vacating the Court
of Appeals’ judgment with regard to claims against Hasty. 
Ante, at 29.  I have previously noted that “ ‘Bivens is a relic 
of  the  heady  days  in  which  this  Court  assumed  common-
law powers to create causes of action.’ ”  Wilkie v. Robbins, 
551  U. S.  537,  568  (2007)  (concurring  opinion)  (quoting 
Correctional  Services  Corp.  v.  Malesko,  534  U. S.  61,  75 
(2001)  (Scalia,  J.,  concurring)).    I  have  thus  declined  to 
“extend  Bivens  even  [where]  its  reasoning  logically  ap-
plied,” thereby limiting “Bivens and its progeny . . . to the 
precise circumstances that they involved.”  Ibid. (internal
quotation  marks  omitted).    This  would,  in  most  cases, 
mean a reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
in  order.  However,  in  order  for  there  to  be  a  controlling
judgment  in  this  suit,  I  concur  in  the  judgment  vacating 
and remanding the claims against petitioner Hasty as that 
disposition is closest to my preferred approach. 

II 
As  for  respondents’  claims  under  42  U. S. C.  §1985(3), 
I  join  Part  V  of  the  Court’s  opinion,  which  holds  that 
respondents  are  entitled  to  qualified  immunity.    The 
Court correctly applies our precedents, which no party has 
asked  us  to  reconsider.    I  write  separately,  however,  to
note  my  growing  concern  with  our  qualified  immunity 
jurisprudence. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1871, of which §1985(3) and the
more  frequently  litigated  §1983  were  originally  a  part,
established  causes  of  action  for  plaintiffs  to  seek  money 
damages  from  Government  officers  who  violated  federal 
law.  See  §§1,  2,  17  Stat.  13.  Although  the  Act  made  no
mention  of  defenses  or  immunities,  “we  have  read  it  in 
harmony  with  general  principles  of  tort  immunities  and