Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 61

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

17 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Bivens by substituting the U. S. Government as a defend-
ant  in  suits  against  federal  officers  that  raised  constitu-
tional  claims.  See  Pfander,  Constitutional  Torts,  at  102. 
Later,  Congress  expressly  immunized  federal  employees
acting in the course of their official duties from tort claims 
except  those  premised  on  violations  of  the  Constitution.
See  Federal  Employees  Liability  Reform  and  Tort  Com-
pensation  Act  of  1988,  commonly  known  as  the  Westfall 
Act, 28 U. S. C. §2679(b)(2)(A).  We stated that it is conse-
quently  “crystal  clear  that  Congress  views  [the  Federal
Tort  Claims  Act]  and  Bivens  as  [providing]  parallel,  com-
plementary  causes  of  action.”    Carlson,  446  U. S.,  at  20; 
see Malesko, 534 U. S., at 68 (similar).  Congress has even
assumed the existence of a Bivens remedy in suits brought
by  noncitizen  detainees  suspected  of  terrorism.  See  42 
U. S. C.  §2000dd–1  (granting  qualified  immunity—but
not  absolute  immunity—to  military  and  civilian  federal
officials  who  are  sued  by  alien  detainees  suspected  of 
terrorism). 

B 

The  majority  opinion also  sets  forth  a  more  specific  list 
of  factors  that  it  says  bear  on  “whether  a  case  presents  a 
new  Bivens  context.”  Ante,  at  16.  In  the  Court’s  view,  a 
“case  might  differ”  from  Bivens  “in  a  meaningful  way 
because  of  [1]  the  rank  of  the  officers  involved;  [2]  the 
constitutional  right  at  issue;  [3]  the  generality  or  specifi- 
city of the individual action; [4] the extent of judicial guid-
ance as to how an officer should respond to the problem or 
emergency to be confronted; [5] the statutory or other legal 
mandate  under  which  the  officer  was  operating;  [6]  the
risk of disruptive intrusion by the Judiciary into the func-
tioning  of  other  branches;  [7]  or  the  presence  of  potential 
special  factors  that  previous  Bivens  cases  did  not  con-
sider.”  Ante, at 16.  In my view, these factors do not make a
“meaningful  difference”  at  Step  One  of  the  Bivens  frame-