Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 22

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

the  wake  of  a  major  terrorist  attack  on  American  soil. 
Those  claims  bear  little  resemblance  to  the  three  Bivens 
claims the Court has approved in the past: a claim against 
FBI  agents  for  handcuffing  a  man  in  his  own  home  with-
out  a  warrant;  a  claim  against  a  Congressman  for  firing
his  female  secretary;  and  a  claim  against  prison  officials 
for  failure  to  treat  an  inmate’s  asthma.    See  Bivens,  403 
U. S.  388;  Davis,  442  U. S.  228;  Chappell,  462  U. S.  296. 
The Court of Appeals therefore should have held that this 
was a new Bivens context.  Had it done so, it would have 
recognized  that  a  special  factors  analysis  was  required 
before allowing this damages suit to proceed. 

B 
After  considering  the  special  factors  necessarily  impli-
cated by the detention policy claims, the Court now holds 
that  those  factors  show  that  whether  a  damages  action 
should be allowed is a decision for the Congress to make,
not the courts. 

With  respect  to  the  claims  against  the  Executive  Offi-
cials, it must be noted that a Bivens action is not “a proper
vehicle for altering an entity’s policy.”  Malesko, supra, at 
74.  Furthermore,  a  Bivens  claim  is  brought  against  the
individual  official  for  his  or  her  own  acts,  not  the  acts  of 
others.  “The  purpose  of  Bivens  is  to  deter  the  officer.” 
Meyer,  510  U. S.,  at  485.    Bivens  is  not  designed  to  hold
officers  responsible  for  acts  of  their  subordinates.    See 
Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 676 (“Government officials may not be 
held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subor-
dinates under a theory of respondeat superior ”).

Even if the action is confined to the conduct of a particu-
lar  Executive  Officer  in  a  discrete  instance,  these  claims 
would call into question the formulation and implementa-
tion  of  a  general  policy.  This,  in  turn,  would  necessarily 
require inquiry and discovery into the whole course of the 
discussions  and  deliberations  that  led  to  the  policies  and