Majority opinionThe majority’s conclusion is unsurprising, given that the court has rejected every Bivens claim since 1980. Fifth, the court holds that no Bivens claim is available for First Amendment retaliation, because for “many reasons” Congress, not the court, is better suited to authorize such a damages remedy. But the court need not reconsider Bivens itself to decide this case and therefore does not do so. Gorsuch’s concurrenceGorsuch agrees with the majority’s new single-question approach in asking whether Congress is better equipped than courts to decide whether a damages action should be available. It is fairer to litigants and lower courts to not hold out “false hope” that a private damages action might be available.

Source: Washington Post June 09, 2022 13:49 UTC