Opinion ID: 4301602
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Expansion of the Bivens Remedy Is Disfavored.

Text: In recent years, the Supreme Court has hewed consistently to a path of restraint in creating implied causes 1 In this dissent, I address only the “antecedent” Bivens question. Hernandez, 137 S. Ct. at 2006 (quoting Wood v. Moss, 134 S. Ct. 2056, 2066 (2014)). I do not consider the extraterritorial reach of the Fourth Amendment or Agent Swartz’s qualified immunity defense. 54 RODRIGUEZ V. SWARTZ of action. However, the prevailing legal landscape was markedly different at the time the Court decided Bivens. “In the mid-20th century, the Court followed a different approach to recognizing implied causes of action than it follows now.” Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1855. “During this ‘ancien regime,’ the Court assumed it to be a proper judicial function to ‘provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective’ a statute’s purpose.” Id. (citation omitted) (first quoting Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 287 (2001); then quoting J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 433 (1964)). “[A]s a routine matter with respect to statutes, the Court would imply causes of action not explicit in the statutory text itself.” Id. That ancien regime gave rise to the Court’s decision in Bivens, which created an implied cause of action to remedy a constitutional violation by federal officials. Id. The Court’s current approach is very different. Gone are the days of apparent judicial generosity in recognizing implied causes of action. Instead, the Court has “adopted a far more cautious course before finding implied causes of action.” Id. Indeed, the Court “has made clear that expanding the Bivens remedy is now a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity,” id. at 1857 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009)), and has “consistently refused to extend Bivens to any new context or new category of defendants,” id. (quoting Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 68 (2001)). To this day, the Court has authorized only two extensions of the original Bivens case, the most recent of which occurred thirty-eight years ago. See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980); Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979)). All subsequent attempts to expand Bivens have failed. See Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1857 (citing eight Supreme Court decisions). RODRIGUEZ V. SWARTZ 55 This “notable change in the Court’s approach to recognizing implied causes of action” is rooted in respect for the separation of powers between Congress and the judiciary. Id. “[I]t is a significant step under separation-of-powers principles for a court to determine that it has the authority, under the judicial power, to create and enforce a cause of action for damages against federal officials in order to remedy a constitutional violation.” Id. at 1856. In determining whether our “traditional equitable powers suffice to give necessary constitutional protection,” or whether a damages remedy is necessary, we must pause when implying a damages remedy implicates economic and governmental concerns. Id. These concerns include, among other factors, the substantial monetary cost of defending and indemnifying claims against federal officials, as well as the time and administrative costs incident to litigation. Id. The Supreme Court’s present approach to implied causes of action has wrought profound changes to the Bivens landscape. Indeed, the Court recently mused that “the analysis in the Court’s three Bivens cases might have been different if they were decided today.” Id. In line with its reluctance to imply causes of action, the Court reaffirmed the viability of Bivens claims only narrowly in Abbasi, articulating a restrictive take on both halves of the Bivens test—(1) whether the case presents a new context for a Bivens remedy, and (2) whether there are “special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress.” Id. at 1857 (quoting Carlson, 446 U.S. at 18). First, with respect to the new-context inquiry, the Court voiced misgivings about extending Bivens to new contexts beyond the narrow “context in which it arose.” Id. at 1856. Second, with respect to the special-factors inquiry, the Court observed that the decision to provide for a damages remedy should 56 RODRIGUEZ V. SWARTZ “most often” be left to Congress, particularly in cases where numerous policy considerations must be weighed. Id. at 1857. Thus, the Court has left little room, if any, for lower courts to extend Bivens further.2