Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 47.0

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

3 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

longstanding  Bivens  law.    For  those  reasons,  I  would 
affirm  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeals.    I  shall  dis-
cuss  at  some  length  what  I  believe  is  the  most  important
point of disagreement.  The Court, in my view, is wrong to
hold  that  permitting  a  constitutional  tort  action  here 
would  “extend”  Bivens,  applying  it  in  a  new  context.    To 
the contrary, I fear that the Court’s holding would signifi-
cantly  shrink  the  existing  Bivens  contexts,  diminishing
the  compensatory  remedy  constitutional  tort  law  now 
offers to harmed individuals. 

I  shall  explain  why  I  believe  this  suit  falls  well  within
the  scope  of  traditional  constitutional  tort  law  and  why  I
cannot  agree  with  the  Court’s  arguments  to  the  contrary. 
I  recognize,  and  write  separately  about,  the  strongest  of 
the  Court’s  arguments,  namely,  the  fact  that  plaintiffs’ 
claims  concern  detention  that  took  place  soon  after  a 
serious  attack  on  the  United  States  and  some  of  them 
concern  actions  of  high-level  Government  officials.    While 
these  facts  may  affect  the  substantive  constitutional
questions (e.g., were any of the conditions “legitimate”?) or
the  scope  of  the  qualified-immunity  defense,  they  do  not 
extinguish  the  Bivens  action  itself.  If  I  may  paraphrase 
Justice  Harlan,  concurring  in  Bivens:  In  wartime  as  well 
as in peacetime, “it is important, in a civilized society, that 
the  judicial  branch  of  the  Nation’s  government  stand 
ready  to  afford  a  remedy”  “for  the  most  flagrant  and  pat-
ently  unjustified,”  unconstitutional  “abuses  of  official 
power.”  403  U. S.,  at  410–411  (opinion  concurring  in
judgment);  cf.  Boumediene  v.  Bush,  553  U. S.  723,  798 
(2008). 

I 
The  majority  opinion  well  summarizes  the  particular
claims  that  the  plaintiffs  make  in  this  suit.   All  concern 
the  conditions  of  their  confinement,  which  began  soon
after the September 11, 2001, attacks and “lasted for days