Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

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

13 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

recover  for  physical  injuries,  the  typical  kinds  of  Bivens 
injuries.  See  28  U. S. C.  §1346(b)(2);  Pfander,  Constitu-
tional Torts, at 105–106. 

If there were any lingering doubt that the claim against 
Warden  Hasty  arises  in  a  familiar  Bivens  context,  the 
Court  has  made  clear  that  conditions-of-confinement 
claims  and  medical-care  claims  are  subject  to  the  same
substantive standard.  See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U. S. 
1,  8  (1992)  (“[Wilson  v.  Seiter,  501  U. S.  294,  303  (1991)] 
extended  the  deliberate  indifference  standard  applied  to 
Eighth  Amendment  claims  involving  medical  care  to 
claims  about  conditions  of  confinement”). 
Indeed,  the 
Court made this very point in a Bivens case alleging that 
prison  wardens  were  deliberately  indifferent  to  an  in-
mate’s safety.  See Farmer, supra, at 830, 834. 

I  recognize  that  the  Court  finds  a  significant  difference
in  the  fact  that  the  confinement  here  arose  soon  after  a 
national-security  emergency,  namely,  the  September  11 
attacks.  The short answer to this argument, in respect to
at least some of the claimed harms, is that some plaintiffs 
continued  to  suffer  those  harms  up  to  eight  months  after 
the September 11 attacks took place and after the defend-
ants  knew  the  plaintiffs  had  no  connection  to  terrorism.
See  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  in  No.  15–1359,  p. 280a.    But 
because I believe the Court’s argument here is its strong-
est,  I  will  consider  it  at  greater  length  below.  See  Part 
III–C, infra. 

Because  the  context  here  is  not  new,  I  would  allow  the 
plaintiffs’  constitutional  claims  to  proceed.    The  plaintiffs
have adequately alleged that the defendants were person-
ally  involved  in  imposing  the  conditions  of  confinement 
and did so with knowledge that the plaintiffs bore no ties 
to  terrorism,  thus  satisfying  Iqbal’s  pleading  standard.
See 556 U. S., at 679 (claims must be “plausible”); see also 
id., at 699–700 (BREYER, J., dissenting).  And because it is 
clearly  established  that  it  is  unconstitutional  to  subject