Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1529.pdf
Page Number: 15

12 

HUI v. CASTANEDA 

Opinion of the Court 

remedy under the FTCA may sue a PHS official directly.10 
Accordingly,  respondents  contend,  §233(a)  cannot  be  read
to  make  the  remedy  under  the  FTCA  truly  exclusive. 
Even  if  that  reading  of  §233(f)  were  correct,  it  would  not
benefit  respondents  because  an  FTCA  remedy  is  unques-
tionably available for the misconduct alleged in this case.

For  the  foregoing  reasons,  respondents’  arguments  do 
not undermine our conclusion that the immunity provided
by  §233(a)  precludes  Bivens  actions  against  individual 
PHS officers or employees for harms arising out of conduct 
described in that section. 

* 

* 

* 
In construing §233(a) in petitioners’ favor, we are mind-
ful of the confines of our judicial role.  Respondents’ amici 
caution  that  providing  special  immunity  for  PHS  person-
nel is contrary to the public interest.11  Respondents like-
wise  contend  that  allowing  Bivens  claims  against  PHS 
personnel is necessary to ensure an adequate standard of 
care  in  federal  detention  facilities,  and  they  further  urge 
that  permitting  such  actions  would  not  endanger  PHS’ 
institutional  interests  as  it  would  simply  place  PHS  per-
sonnel  in  the  same  position  as  other  federal  employees 
who perform similar functions.  See Brief for Respondents
52–55,  60–61.    We  are  required,  however,  to  read  the
statute  according  to  its  text.    Because  §233(a)  plainly 

—————— 

10 As  respondents  note,  the  Westfall  Act  substantially  limited  the 
effect of §233(f).  See Brief for Respondents 32 (citing United States v. 
Smith,  499  U. S.  160,  166–167  (1991)).    But  because  the  Act  does  not 
weaken  any  inference  about  the  meaning  of  §233(a)  that  might  be
drawn from §233(f), the changes effected by the Act are not relevant to 
the instant inquiry. 

11 See Brief for American Civil Liberties Union as Amicus Curiae 25– 
28; Brief for National Experts on Health Services for Detained Persons 
as Amici Curiae 17–24; Brief for National Immigrant Justice Center as 
Amicus Curiae 20–21; Brief for Rep. John Conyers, Jr., et al. as Amici 
Curiae 25–31.