Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 19

14 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI 

Opinion of the Court 

and extent of federal-court jurisdiction under Article III.

In  a  related  way,  if  there  is  an  alternative  remedial 
structure  present  in  a  certain  case,  that  alone  may  limit 
the  power  of  the  Judiciary  to  infer  a  new  Bivens  cause  of 
action.  For  if  Congress  has  created  “any  alternative,
existing  process  for  protecting  the  [injured  party’s]  inter-
est”  that  itself  may  “amoun[t]  to  a  convincing  reason  for
the  Judicial  Branch  to  refrain  from  providing  a  new  and 
freestanding  remedy  in  damages.”  Wilkie,  supra,  at  550; 
see  also  Bush,  supra,  at  385–388  (recognizing  that  civil-
service  regulations  provided  alternative  means  for  relief); 
Malesko,  534  U. S.,  at  73–74  (recognizing  that  state  tort 
law provided alternative means for relief); Minneci, supra, 
at 127–130 (same). 

III 
It  is  appropriate  now  to  turn  first  to  the  Bivens  claims 
challenging  the  conditions  of  confinement  imposed  on 
respondents pursuant to the formal policy adopted by the 
Executive  Officials  in  the  wake  of  the  September  11  at-
tacks.  The Court will refer to these claims as the “deten-
tion policy claims.”  The detention policy claims allege that
petitioners  violated  respondents’  due  process  and  equal 
protection rights by holding them in restrictive conditions 
of confinement; the claims further allege that the Wardens
violated  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Amendments  by  subjecting 
respondents to frequent strip searches.  The term “deten-
tion  policy  claims”  does  not  include  respondents’  claim 
alleging  that  Warden  Hasty  allowed  guards  to  abuse  the
detainees.  That  claim  will  be  considered  separately,  and 
further,  below.  At  this  point,  the  question  is  whether,
having considered the relevant special factors in the whole
context  of  the  detention  policy  claims,  the  Court  should 
extend a Bivens-type remedy to those claims.