Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

100  years  leading  up  to  Bivens,  Congress  did  not  pro- 
vide  a  specific  damages  remedy  for  plaintiffs  whose  con- 
stitutional  rights  were  violated  by  agents  of  the  Federal 
Government. 

In 1971, and against this background, this Court decided 
Bivens.  The  Court  held  that,  even  absent  statutory
authorization,  it  would  enforce  a  damages  remedy  to 
compensate  persons  injured  by  federal  officers  who  vio-
lated the prohibition against unreasonable search and sei- 
zures.  See  403  U. S.,  at  397.    The  Court  acknowledged
that  the  Fourth  Amendment  does  not  provide  for  money 
damages  “in  so  many  words.”  Id.,  at  396.  The  Court 
noted,  however,  that  Congress  had  not  foreclosed  a  dam-
ages  remedy  in  “explicit”  terms  and  that  no  “special  fac-
tors”  suggested  that  the  Judiciary  should  “hesitat[e]”  in
the  face  of  congressional  silence.    Id.,  at  396–397.  The 
Court,  accordingly,  held  that  it  could  authorize  a  remedy 
under general principles of federal jurisdiction.  See id., at 
392 (citing Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 684 (1946)). 

In  the  decade  that  followed,  the  Court  recognized  what
has  come  to  be  called  an  implied  cause  of  action  in  two 
cases involving other constitutional violations.  In Davis v. 
Passman,  442  U. S.  228  (1979),  an  administrative  assis-
tant sued a Congressman for firing her because she was a 
woman.  The  Court  held  that  the  Fifth  Amendment  Due 
Process  Clause  gave  her  a  damages  remedy  for  gender
discrimination.  Id., at 248–249.  And in Carlson v. Green, 
446 U. S. 14 (1980), a prisoner’s estate sued federal jailers
for failing to treat the prisoner’s asthma.  The Court held 
that  the  Eighth  Amendment  Cruel  and  Unusual  Punish-
ments  Clause  gave  him  a  damages  remedy  for  failure  to
provide adequate medical treatment.  See id., at 19.  These 
three  cases—Bivens,  Davis,  and  Carlson—represent  the
only  instances  in  which  the  Court  has  approved  of  an 
implied damages remedy under the Constitution itself.