Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 59

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

15 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

considerable  time.  Some  of  the  plaintiffs  allege  that  for
two  or  three  months  they  were  subject  to  a  “communica-
tions blackout”; that the prison “staff did not permit them
visitors, legal or social telephone calls, or mail”; that their 
families  and  attorneys  did  not  know  where  they  were
being  held;  that  they  could  not  receive  visits  from  their
attorneys; that subsequently their lawyers could call them
only  once  a  week;  and  that  some  or  all  of  the  defendants 
“interfered  with  the  detainees’  effective  access  to  legal 
counsel.”  Office  of  Inspector  General  (OIG)  Report,  App. 
223,  293,  251,  391;  see  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  in  No.  15–
1359, at 253a (incorporating the OIG report into the com-
plaint).  These  claims  make  it  virtually  impossible  to  say 
that  here  there  is  an  “elaborate,  comprehensive”  alterna-
tive remedial scheme similar to schemes that, in the past, 
we  have  found  block  the  application  of  Bivens  to  new 
contexts.  Bush,  462  U. S.,  at  385.    If  these  allegations
are  proved,  then  in  this  suit,  it  is  “damages  or  noth-
ing.”  Bivens,  403  U. S.,  at  410  (Harlan,  J.,  concurring  in 
judgment).

There  being  no  “alternative,  existing  process”  that  pro-
vides  a  “convincing  reason”  for  not  applying  Bivens,  we 
must proceed to Step Three.  Wilkie, supra, at 550.  Doing
so, I can find no “special factors [that] counse[l] hesitation 
before authorizing” this Bivens action.  551 U. S., at 550.  I 
turn to this matter next. 

II
 
A 

The  Court  describes  two  general  considerations  that  it
believes argue against an “extension” of Bivens.  First, the 
majority opinion points out that the Court is now far less
likely than at the time it decided Bivens to imply a cause 
of action for damages from a statute that does not explicitly
provide  for  a  damages  claim.  See  ante,  at  8–9.    Second, 
it  finds  the  “silence”  of  Congress  “notable”  in  that  Con-