Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

4 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

and  weeks,  then  stretching  into  months.”    Ante,  at  1.  At 
some  point,  the  plaintiffs  allege,  all  the  defendants  knew 
that they had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks 
but continued to detain them anyway in harsh conditions.
Official  Government  policy,  both  before  and  after  the 
defendants  became  aware  of  the  plaintiffs’  innocence,  led 
to the plaintiffs being held in “tiny cells for over 23 hours a
day”  with  lights  continuously  left  on,  “shackled”  when
moved,  often  “strip  searched,”  and  “denied  access  to  most
forms of communication with the outside world.”  Ante, at 
4  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    The  defendants 
detained  the  plaintiffs  in  these  conditions  on  the  basis  of 
their race or religion and without justification. 

Moreover, the prison wardens were aware of, but delib-
erately indifferent to, certain unofficial activities of prison 
guards involving a pattern of “physical and verbal abuse,” 
such  as  “slam[ming]  detainees  into  walls;  twist[ing]  their 
arms,  wrists,  and  fingers;  [breaking]  their  bones;”  and 
subjecting them to verbal taunts.  Ibid. (internal quotation
marks omitted). 

The  plaintiffs’  complaint  alleges  that  all  the  defend-
ants—high-level Department of Justice officials and prison
wardens  alike—were  directly  responsible  for  the  official 
confinement  policy,  which,  in  some  or  all  of  the  aspects
mentioned,  violated  the  due  process  and  equal  protection 
components of the Fifth Amendment.  The complaint adds 
that,  insofar  as  the  prison  wardens  were  deliberately 
indifferent  to  the  unofficial  conduct  of  the  guards,  they
violated the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments. 

I would hold that the complaint properly alleges consti-

tutional torts, i.e., Bivens actions for damages. 

A 
The Court’s holdings in Bivens, Carlson, and Davis rest 
upon  four  basic  legal  considerations.    First,  the  Bivens 
Court  referred  to  longstanding  Supreme  Court  precedent