Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

6 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI 

Opinion of the Court 

Respondents  also  brought  a  claim  under  42  U. S. C.
§1985(3),  which  forbids  certain  conspiracies  to  violate 
equal  protection  rights.  Respondents  alleged  that  peti-
tioners conspired with one another to hold respondents in
harsh conditions because of their actual or apparent race, 
religion, or national origin. 

C 
The  District  Court  dismissed  the  claims  against  the
Executive  Officials  but  allowed  the  claims  against  the 
Wardens to go forward.  The Court of Appeals affirmed in 
most  respects  as  to  the  Wardens,  though  it  held  that  the 
prisoner  abuse  claim  against  Sherman  (the  associate
warden)  should  have  been  dismissed.    789  F. 3d,  at  264– 
265.  As  to  the  Executive  Officials,  however,  the  Court  of 
Appeals  reversed,  reinstating  respondents’  claims.    Ibid.  
As  noted  above,  Judge  Raggi  dissented.    She  would  have 
held  that  only  the  prisoner  abuse  claim  against  Hasty 
should go forward.  Id., at 295, n. 41, 302 (opinion concur-
ring  in  part  in  judgment  and  dissenting  in  part).    The 
Court of Appeals declined to rehear the suit en banc, 808 
F. 3d,  at  197;  and,  again  as  noted  above,  Judge  Raggi
joined a second dissent along with five other judges, id., at 
198.  This Court granted certiorari.  580 U. S. ___ (2016). 

II 

The first question to be discussed is whether petitioners 
can  be  sued  for  damages  under  Bivens  and  the  ensuing 
cases  in  this  Court  defining  the  reach  and  the  limits  of 
that precedent. 

A 
In 1871, Congress passed a statute that was later codi-
fied at Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983.  It entitles an 
injured person to money damages if a state official violates
his  or  her  constitutional  rights.    Congress  did  not  create
an  analogous  statute  for  federal  officials.  Indeed,  in  the