Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 54

10 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

mistreatment, as it protects citizens.  See United States v. 
Verdugo-Urquidez,  494  U. S.  259,  271  (1990)  (“[A]liens 
receive  constitutional  protections  when  they  have  come 
within  the  territory  of  the  United  States  and  developed 
substantial connections with this country”).  Some or all of
the  plaintiffs  here  may  have  been  illegally  present  in  the 
United  States.  But  that  fact  cannot  justify  physical  mis-
treatment.  Nor does anyone claim that that fact deprives 
them of a Bivens right available to other persons, citizens
and noncitizens alike. 

Second,  the  defendants  are  Government  officials.  They
are  not  members  of  the  military  or  private  persons.    Two 
are  prison  wardens.  Three  others  are  high-ranking  De-
partment  of  Justice  officials.    Prison  wardens  have  been 
defendants  in  Bivens  actions,  as  have  other  high-level
Government  officials.  One  of  the  defendants  in  Carlson 
was  the  Director  of  the  Bureau  of  Prisons;  the  defendant 
in  Davis  was  a  Member  of  Congress.    We  have  also  held 
that  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  is  not
entitled  to  absolute  immunity  in  a  damages  suit  arising 
out of his actions related to national security.  See Mitchell 
v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 520 (1985).

Third,  from  a  Bivens  perspective,  the  injuries  that  the
plaintiffs  claim  they  suffered  are  familiar  ones.    They
focus  upon  the  conditions  of  confinement.    The  plaintiffs
say  that  they  were  unnecessarily  shackled,  confined  in
small  unhygienic  cells,  subjected  to  continuous  lighting
(presumably  preventing  sleep),  unnecessarily  and  fre-
quently  strip  searched,  slammed  against  walls,  injured 
physically,  and  subject  to  verbal  abuse.    They  allege  that
they suffered these harms because of their race or religion, 
the  defendants  having  either  turned  a  blind  eye  to  what 
was happening or themselves introduced policies that they
knew would lead to these harms even though the defend-
ants knew the plaintiffs had no connections to terrorism. 

These claimed harms are similar to, or even worse than,