Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

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

33 

Opinion of the Court 

given above, the Court answers that question in the nega-
tive  as  to  the  detention  policy  claims.  As  to  the  prisoner
abuse  claim,  because  the  briefs  have  not  concentrated  on 
that  issue,  the  Court  remands  to  allow  the  Court  of  Ap-
peals to consider the claim in light of the Bivens analysis 
set forth above. 

The  question  with  respect  to  the  §1985(3)  claim  is
whether a reasonable officer in petitioners’ position would 
have known the alleged conduct was an unlawful conspir-
acy.  For the reasons given above, the Court answers that 
question, too, in the negative.

The  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  is  reversed  as  to
all  of  the  claims  except  the  prisoner  abuse  claim  against
Warden  Hasty.  The  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeals 
with  respect  to  that  claim  is  vacated,  and  that  case  is
remanded for further proceedings. 

It is so ordered.

 JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR,  JUSTICE  KAGAN,  and  JUSTICE 
GORSUCH  took  no  part  in  the  consideration  or  decision  of 
these cases.