Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

A 

Before  allowing  respondents’  detention  policy  claims  to
proceed  under  Bivens,  the  Court  of  Appeals  did  not  per-
form any special factors analysis at all.  789 F. 3d, at 237. 
The reason, it said, was that the special factors analysis is
necessary only if a plaintiff asks for a Bivens remedy in a 
new  context.  789  F. 3d,  at  234.    And  in  the  Court  of  Ap-
peals’ view, the context here was not new.  Id., at 235. 

To determine whether the Bivens context was novel, the 
Court of Appeals employed a two-part test.  First, it asked 
whether the asserted constitutional right was at issue in a
previous Bivens case.  789 F. 3d, at 234.  Second, it asked 
whether  the  mechanism  of  injury  was  the  same  mecha-
nism of injury in a previous Bivens case.  789 F. 3d, at 234. 
Under  the  Court  of  Appeals’  approach,  if  the  answer  to
both questions is “yes,” then the context is not new and no
special factors analysis is required.  Ibid. 

That  approach  is  inconsistent  with  the  analysis  in 
Malesko.  Before  the  Court  decided  that  case,  it  had  ap-
proved  a  Bivens  action  under  the  Eighth  Amendment
against federal prison officials for failure to provide medi-
cal treatment.  See Carlson, 446 U. S., at 16, n. 1, 18–19. 
In  Malesko,  the  plaintiff  sought  relief  against  a  private
prison  operator  in  almost  parallel  circumstances.  534 
U. S.,  at  64.    In  both  cases,  the  right  at  issue  was  the
same:  the  Eighth  Amendment  right  to  be  free  from  cruel 
and  unusual  punishment.    And  in  both  cases,  the  mecha-
nism  of  injury  was  the  same:  failure  to  provide  adequate 
medical treatment.  Thus, if the approach followed by the 
Court of Appeals is the correct one, this Court should have
held  that  the  cases  arose  in  the  same  context,  obviating
any need for a special factors inquiry.

That,  however,  was  not  the  controlling  analytic  frame-
work  in  Malesko.  Even  though  the  right  and  the  mecha-
nism of injury were the same as they were in Carlson, the 
Court held that the contexts were different.  534 U. S., at