Law Commons^™

Going Rogue: The Supreme Court's Newfound Hostility To Policy-Based Bivens Claims, Joanna C. Schwartz, Alexander A. Reinert, James E. Pfander

Articles

In Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017), the Supreme Court held that a proposed Bivens remedy was subject to an exacting special factors analysis when the claim arises in a “new context.” In Ziglar itself, the Court found the context of the plaintiffs’ claims to be “new” because, in the Court’s view, they challenged “large-scale policy decisions concerning the conditions of confinement imposed on hundreds of prisoners.” Bivens claims for damages caused by unconstitutional policies, the Court suggested, were inappropriate.

This Essay critically examines the Ziglar Court’s newfound hostility to policy-based Bivens claims. We show that an …

Qualified Immunity And Constitutional Structure, Katherine Mims Crocker

Michigan Law Review

A range of scholars has subjected qualified immunity to a wave of criticism— and for good reasons. But the Supreme Court continues to apply the doctrine in ever more aggressive ways. By advancing two claims, this Article seeks to make some sense of this conflict and to suggest some thoughts toward a resolution.

First, while the Court has offered and scholars have rejected several rationales for the doctrine, layering in an account grounded in structural constitutional concerns provides a historically richer and analytically thicker understanding of the current qualified-immunity regime. For suits against federal officials, qualified immunity acts as a …

The Role Of Fault In § 1983 Municipal Liability, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, local governments are not vicariously liable for constitutional violations committed by their employees. Those governments, however, are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations committed by "policymaking" officials. In the face of these two principles, courts have struggled with cases in which an underling commits a constitutional violation and the claim of municipal liability is based on a policymaker's failure to prevent it. The government can be liable in these "indirect-effect" cases for a policymaker's "deliberate indifference" to safeguarding constitutional rights, a standard that demands an even greater showing of culpability than …

Qualified Immunity And Statutory Interpretation: A Response To William Baude, Hillel Y. Levin, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

In his article, Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?, Professor Baude argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity under section 1983 is unlawful because the doctrine did not exist at the time section 1983 was enacted. We disagree. Section 1983 is a common law statute. Consequently, its meaning and application was not fixed at the time of original passage. In this article, we explain why.

Although we are sympathetic to Professor Baude’s implicit policy-based critique of the doctrine of qualified immunity, we believe his analysis is flawed. The better and more likely way to improve the doctrine is through the common law …

Rethinking The Order Of Battle In Constitutional Torts: A Reply To John Jeffries, Nancy Leong

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Intramilitary Tort Immunity: A Constitutional Justification , Kevin M. Fillo

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Law, The Westfall Act, And The Nature Of The Bivens Question, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Stephen I. Vladeck

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In a number of recent cases touching to varying degrees on national security, different courts of appeals have applied a strong presumption against recognition of a Bivens cause of action. In each of these cases, the courts’ approach was based on the belief that the creation of a cause of action is a legislative function and that the courts would be usurping Congress’s role if they recognized a Bivens action without legislative authorization. Thus, faced with a scenario where they believed that the remedial possibilities were either "Bivens or nothing," these courts of appeals chose nothing.

The concerns that …

Richardson V. Mcknight: Barring Qualified Immunity From 42 U.S.C. § 1983 For Private Jailers , Lori Dacosse

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Indifferent [Towards] Indifference:" Post-Deshaney Accountability For Social Services Agencies When A Child Is Injured Or Killed Under Their Protective Watch, Carolina D. Watts

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Resolving The Qualified Immunity Dilemma: Constitutional Tort Claims For Nominal Damages, James E. Pfander

Faculty Working Papers

Scholars have criticized the Court's qualified immunity decision in Pearson v. Callahan on the ground that it may lead to stagnation in the judicial elaboration of constitutional norms. Under current law, officers sued in their personal capacity for constitutional torts enjoy qualified immunity from liability unless the plaintiff can persuade the court that the conduct in question violated clearly established law. Pearson permits the lower courts to dismiss on the basis of legal uncertainty; it no longer requires the courts to address the merits of the constitutional question. This essay suggests that constitutional tort claimants should be permitted to avoid …

Constitutional Law - Qualified Immunity For Ins Church-Busters? Presbyterian Church (Usa) V. United States, Michael E. Banister

Golden Gate University Law Review

This note will focus on the court's holding that the individual agents are qualifiedly immune from damages suits based on the churches' claim that their right to the free exercise of religion under the first amendment was violated.

The Story Of Bivens V. Six Unknown-Named Agents Of The Federal Bureau Of Narcotics, James E. Pfander

Faculty Working Papers

In Bivens v. Six Unknown-Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court recognized the right of an individual to sue federal government officials for a violation of constitutional rights. Drawing on interviews with some of the participants, including Webster Bivens himself and one of the agents who conducted the search, this chapter in the forthcoming book Federal Courts' Stories describes the events that led to the litigation and the complex array of factors that informed the Court's approach to the case. After placing the Bivens decision in context, the chapter evaluates the competing narratives that have grown …

Scott V. Harris And The Role Of The Jury In Constitutional Litigation, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Suits brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 to recover damages for excessive force by the police bear some resemblance to common law tort litigation, since the key Fourth Amendment issue is whether the force was 'unreasonable.' In ordinary negligence law the jury typically decides whether an actor has exercised reasonable care, even when there is no dispute as to the facts. In section 1983 litigation the federal courts are badly split on the allocation of decision making between judge and jury, sometimes even within a particular circuit. The Supreme Court recently faced the judge-jury issue in Scott v. Harris, where …

Alternative State Remedies In Constitutional Torts, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

In recent years, a subtle shift in constitutional tort doctrine has quietly begun to take root. In Bivens actions, the Supreme Court has recently implied that constitutional tort plaintiffs must seek relief under state law when it is available, rather than invoke their federal constitutional rights. This marks a dramatic change from past practices. For much of the twentieth century, a central premise in the constitutional tort field has been that the federal remedy is "supplementary" to the state remedy; constitutional tort plaintiffs have therefore been permitted to seek a remedy under federal law without regard to the availability of …

Hammering In Screws: Why The Court Should Look Beyond Summary Judgment When Resolving Section 1983 Qualified Immunity Disputes, Teressa E. Ravenell

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Which Comes First In Federal Court, The Chicken Or The Baby Chicks: The Unavailability Of Federal Remedies For Spousal Consortium Claims Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Michelle N. Ferreri

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The "Order-Of-Battle" In Constitutional Litigation, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

This article examines and defends a procedural rule that figures prominently in constitutional tort litigation, has drawn sharp criticism from the federal judiciary, and seems to have lost the support of at least four sitting Supreme Court Justices. In order to recover damages, plaintiffs must not only prove a constitutional violation but also fend off assertions of official immunity. In ruling on motions to dismiss the complaint and motions for summary judgment, a preliminary question is the sequence in which the two issues should be addressed-a problem the Justices call the "order-of-battle." Morse v. Frederick, the "Bong Hits Jesus" case, …

A Theory Of Government Damages Liability: Torts, Constitutional Torts, And Takings, Lawrence Rosenthal

ExpressO

Theories of tort liability generally fall within two broad camps: the instrumentalists claim that tort liability promotes efficient investments in safety by cutting into the revenues of those who under-invest in safety; and the advocates of corrective justice claim that tort liability embodies a moral obligation of culpable parties to bear losses for which they are fairly considered responsible. Neither theory offers much support for government tort liability. Unlike private tortfeasors, the government’s objective is not profit maximization; it responds to political and not market discipline. Thus, the instrumental justification for tort liability is wanting in the public sector. As …

Deliberate Indifference Or Not: That Is The Question In The Third Circuit Jail Suicide Case Of Woloszyn V. Lawrence County, Shevon I. Scarafile

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Government Corruption And The Right Of Access To Courts, Una A. Kim

Michigan Law Review

This Note addresses the question left unanswered in Harbury: whether these denial of access-to-courts cases, which Justice Souter termed "backward-looking" access claims, are valid exercises of a constitutional right. Backward-looking access claims such as Harbury's differ from traditional denial of access-to-courts claims in that their aim is not to remove impediments to bringing causes of action in the future. Rather, backward-looking access claims allege that a suit that could have been filed in the past was not brought or was not litigated effectively, because access to the courts was at that time denied or obstructed by government officials. …

Behind The Shield? Law Enforcement Agencies And The Self-Critical Analysis Privilege, Josh Jones

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Causation, Constitutional Principles, And The Jurisprudential Legacy Of The Warren Court, Michelle Adams

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Street Legal: The Court Affords Police Constitutional Carte Blanche, Wayne A. Logan

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Third Circuit's Approach To The Private Enforcement Of Administrative Agency Regulations Under Section 1983, Lisa M. Lamb

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unclearly Establishing Qualified Immunity: What Sources Of Authority May Be Used To Determine Whether The Law Is Clearly Established In The Third Circuit, Jonathan M. Stemerman

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Removal And Waiver Of The Eleventh Amendment, Leah M. Krider

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Why Constitutional Torts Deserve A Book Of Their Own, Michael Wells, Thomas A. Eaton, Sheldon H. Nahmod

Seattle University Law Review

Over thirty years ago, Marshall Shapo coined the term "constitutional tort" to denote a suit brought against an official, charging a constitutional violation and seeking damages.' In the years since Shapo's pathbreaking article, the number of such suits has grown exponentially.' The suits have generated a host of new substantive and remedial issues, yet conventional casebooks on constitutional law and federal courts give little attention to the area. That Professor Shapiro had four books to include in his review of “Civil Rights” casebooks in the Seattle University Law Review is some indication of a demand for teaching materials currently unmet …

Constitutional Torts, Common Law Torts, And Due Process Of Law, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Government officers may harm persons in many ways. When an official inflicts a physical injury, causes emotional distress, publishes defamatory statements, or initiates a malicious prosecution, the victim's traditional recourse is a tort suit brought under common law or statutory principles. But an alternative to ordinary tort may also be available. The growth of damage remedies for constitutional violations in the decades following Monroe v. Pape has encouraged litigants to frame their cases as breaches of the Constitution. These litigants may sue for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the offender is a state employee, or assert the damages …

Punitive Damages For Constitutional Torts, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Critics complain that punitive damages often serve no good purpose. Whatever the merit of this charge as a general proposition, it is not universally valid across the range of tort suits. This article examines the issues raised by punitive damages for constitutional torts and takes issue with the general failure of commentators on punitive damages to recognize differences between constitutional tort and common law torts. I shall argue that constitutional tort is one area where punitive damage awards are essential to the effective enforcement of our rights. Constitutional tort is a special domain, in which the policy issues that bear …

Constitutional Mass Torts: Sovereign Immunity And The Human Radiation Experiments (Note), Nestor M. Davidson

Faculty Scholarship

Part I of this Note explains why the present system does not allow individuals to recover damages against the federal government for violations of the Constitution. It first describes the doctrine of constitutional torts and its limitations. It then discusses sovereign immunity, and explains that Congress has retained sovereign immunity for constitutional torts. It concludes with a discussion of the Supreme Court's policy arguments for not creating a cause of action against the government for constitutional violations. Part II explores the Human Radiation Experiments as a case study in the remedial gaps created by the current scope of Bivens and …