Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1529.pdf
Page Number: 4

Cite as:  559 U. S. ____ (2010) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 08–1529 
_________________ 

ESTHER HUI, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. YANIRA 

CASTANEDA, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE ESTATE OF FRANCISCO 

CASTANEDA, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[May 3, 2010]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 
This  case  presents  the  question  whether  42  U. S. C. 
§233(a),  as  added,  84  Stat.  1870,  precludes  an  action
under  Bivens  v.  Six  Unknown  Fed.  Narcotics  Agents,  403 
U. S.  388  (1971),  against  U. S.  Public  Health  Service
(PHS) personnel for constitutional violations arising out of 
their official duties.  When federal employees are sued for 
damages  for  harms  caused  in  the  course  of  their  employ-
ment,  the  Federal  Tort  Claims  Act  (FTCA),  28  U. S. C.
§§1346,  2671–2680,  generally  authorizes  substitution  of 
the United States as the defendant.  Section 233(a) makes
the FTCA remedy against the United States “exclusive of
any  other  civil  action  or  proceeding”  for  any  personal
injury  caused  by  a  PHS  officer  or  employee  performing  a 
medical or related function “while acting within the scope 
of his office or employment.”  Based on the plain language
of  §233(a),  we  conclude  that  PHS  officers  and  employees
are  not  personally  subject  to  Bivens  actions  for  harms 
arising out of such conduct.