Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

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

31 

Opinion of the Court 

approving  or  disapproving  the  intracorporate-conspiracy
doctrine’s application in the context of an alleged §1985(3)
violation.  The Court might determine, in some later case, 
that different considerations apply to a conspiracy respect-
ing  equal  protection  guarantees,  as  distinct  from  a  con-
spiracy  in  the  antitrust  context.    Yet  the  fact  that  the 
courts are divided as to whether or not a §1985(3) conspir-
acy  can  arise  from  official  discussions  between  or  among 
agents  of  the  same  entity  demonstrates  that  the  law  on
the  point  is  not  well  established.  When  the  courts  are 
divided  on  an  issue  so  central  to  the  cause  of  action  al-
leged, a reasonable official lacks the notice required before
imposing liability.  See Wilson v. Layne, 526 U. S. 603, 618 
(1999)  (noting  that  it  would  be  “unfair”  to  subject  officers 
to  damages  liability  when  even  “judges  . . .  disagree”); 
Reichle v. Howards, 566 U. S. 658, 669–670 (2012) (same). 
In addition to the concern that agents of the same legal 
entity are not distinct enough to conspire with one another, 
there  are  other  sound  reasons  to  conclude  that  conver-
sations  and  agreements  between  and  among  federal  offi-
cials in the same Department should not be the subject of
a private cause of action for damages under §1985(3).  To 
state  a  claim  under  §1985(3),  a  plaintiff  must  first  show
that the defendants conspired—that is, reached an agree-
ment—with  one  another.  See  Carpenters,  463  U. S.,  at 
828 (stating that the elements of a §1985(3) claim include
“a  conspiracy”).  Thus,  a  §1985(3)  claim  against  federal 
officials  by  necessity  implicates  the  substance  of  their
official discussions. 

As  indicated  above  with  respect  to  other  claims  in  this
suit,  open  discussion  among  federal  officers  is  to  be  en-
couraged, so that they can reach consensus on the policies 
a  department  of  the  Federal  Government  should  pursue.
See  supra,  at  17–18.  Close  and  frequent  consultations  to 
facilitate  the  adoption  and  implementation  of  policies  are
essential  to  the  orderly  conduct  of  governmental  affairs.