Summary

Portrait of William Rehnquist William Rehnquist Correctional Services Corporation v…

The prisoner may not bring a Bivens claim against the officer’s employer, the United States or the BOP. With respect to the alleged constitutional deprivation, his only remedy lies against the individual; a remedy Meyer found sufficient, and which respondent did not timely pursue. Whether it makes sense to impose asymmetrical liability costs on private prison facilities alone is a question for Congress, not us, to decide.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Rehnquist William Rehnquist Correctional Services Corporation v…

We first exercised this authority in Bivens, where we held that a victim of a Fourth Amendment violation by federal officers may bring suit for money damages against the officers in federal court. Bivens acknowledged that Congress had never provided for a private right of action against federal officers, and that “the Fourth Amendment does not in so many words provide for its enforcement by award of money damages for the consequences of its violation.”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Rehnquist William Rehnquist Correctional Services Corporation v…

If deterring the conduct of a policy-making entity was the purpose of Bivens, then Meyer would have implied a damages remedy against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was after all an agency policy that led to Meyer’s constitutional deprivation. Meyer, supra, at 473—474. But Bivens from its inception has been based not on that premise, but on the deterrence of individual officers who commit unconstitutional acts.
There is no reason for us to consider extending Bivens beyond this core premise here. [5] To begin with, no federal prisoners enjoy respondent’s contemplated remedy.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature