In a recent decision before its summer recess, the Supreme Court delivered a succinct unsigned opinion in Goldey v. Fields, reversing the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit’s ruling that permitted Andrew Fields’ Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim to proceed. Fields, a federal prisoner, accused Federal Bureau of Prisons officers of abuse and faced obstacles in accessing the prison grievance system, prompting him to file a lawsuit. The case, analyzed in detail in the SCOTUSblog series “Civil Rights and Wrongs” by Daniel Harawa, illustrates the court’s reticence in extending Bivens remedies against federal officers.
The decision in Goldey arrives in the wake of Egbert v. Boule, wherein the court emphasized that recognizing damages against federal officers remains a “disfavored judicial activity” and underscored the need for caution from lower courts in such matters. However, while the decision in Egbert could be interpreted as a signal that Bivens might be on its last legs, the justices have not yet overruled it completely. Instead, they continue to adhere to a two-step framework designed to evaluate the viability of new Bivens actions.
This judicial stance of not outright dismissing Bivens has practical implications: it creates the illusion of constitutional protection against federal violations, potentially misleading victims into pursuing claims that ultimately fail. Moreover, it removes legislative pressure from Congress to enact a more direct statutory remedy akin to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for federal officials. The reluctance to take a categorical stance on Bivens may prevent legislative development and perpetuate complexities within lower courts, which must continue to apply fatigued judicial analyses.
The discussion notes that for the court to genuinely promote legislative change, it might need to take a definitive position on Bivens. If the judicial branch signals its withdrawal from acknowledging such remedies, it could encourage public demand for Congressional responses to create statutory provisions, thereby addressing potential constitutional violations by federal authorities more robustly.