Ariana Klay v. Leon Panetta
411 U.S. App. D.C. 178
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Twelve current or former Navy and Marine service members alleged they were raped, sexually assaulted, or subjected to severe sexual harassment by fellow service members and then retaliated against by superiors after reporting the incidents.
- Plaintiffs sued senior defense and service officials (Secretaries of Defense, Secretaries of the Navy, Commandants of the Marine Corps) for money damages under constitutional theories, invoking Bivens rather than any statutory cause of action.
- Plaintiffs alleged systemic policies and omissions (e.g., moral waivers for recruits, command interference in investigations, nonjudicial punishment, failure to create a centralized sexual assault database or required commission) that fostered a hostile environment and tacitly sanctioned abuse.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the district court granted dismissal, concluding a Bivens remedy was unavailable because plaintiff’s claims implicated military-management decisions and were barred by precedent.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that special factors—including deference to military decisionmaking and Congress’s extensive legislative activity on military sexual assault—counsel strongly against implying a Bivens damages remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of a Bivens remedy for alleged constitutional violations by senior military officials | Plaintiffs seek an implied constitutional damages remedy (Bivens) for injuries from assaults and retaliation caused by defendants’ policies/inaction | Bivens should not be extended; judicially created remedies in military context intrude on military discipline and management | No Bivens remedy; court declines to imply damages action |
| Whether injuries were "incident to service" (Stanley/Feres line) | Plaintiffs: assaults were not to further any military mission and thus not incident to service | Defendants: claims attack military management, supervision, and discipline, implicating "incident to service" concerns | Claims would require judicial second-guessing of military decisions and are barred under the "incident to service" framework |
| Effect of Congress’s legislative activity on implied remedies | Plaintiffs contend courts must enforce statutory mandates (e.g., alleged failure to establish commission/database) and that judicial review is appropriate where statutory duties exist | Defendants argue Congress has extensively legislated on military sexual assault but has not created a damages remedy; separation-of-powers counsels against implying one | Congressional engagement on the issue is a special factor; absence of a statutory damages remedy weighs against creating a Bivens action |
| Whether statutory-violation allegations (failure to follow congressional mandates) remove the case from military-deference constraints | Plaintiffs: statutory violations are not matters of military judgment and should be adjudicated by courts | Defendants: even statutory-violation claims would require intrusion into military management and Congress’s inaction on damages remains dispositive | Even statutory-violation allegations do not overcome special factors; Bivens relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized an implied damages action for Fourth Amendment violations)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (approved Bivens-style remedy for Fifth Amendment employment discrimination in a novel context)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (approved Bivens-style remedy for Eighth Amendment claims by prisoner)
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) (military context: special factors and congressional activity bar Bivens relief against military officers)
- United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987) (no Bivens remedy for injuries that arise out of activity incident to service)
- United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52 (1985) (FTCA/incident-to-service analysis: suits challenging military supervision and control implicate military discipline concerns)
- Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (established military exception to FTCA; injuries incident to service barred)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) (two-step framework for assessing whether to extend Bivens; consider alternatives and special factors)