John Doe v. Donald Rumsfeld
401 U.S. App. D.C. 256
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Doe, a U.S. citizen contractor translator, was detained and interrogated by NCIS and held at Camp Cropper in Iraq for nine months with alleged mistreatment and no formal charging.
- Doe filed suit in 2008 against Secretary Rumsfeld and other officials alleging Detainee Treatment Act violations and a Bivens due process claim; the district court dismissed DTA claims and some others but allowed a Bivens claim to proceed and denied qualified immunity for substantive due process.
- The district court concluded a Bivens remedy existed for the alleged conduct and that Secretary Rumsfeld was not entitled to qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim.
- Rumsfeld challenged (i) the district court’s implication of a Bivens remedy in this military detention context and (ii) any applicable qualified immunity defense.
- The appellate court holds that a Bivens remedy should not be implied in this context and reverses the district court’s order; it also notes Congress did not authorize a private DTA action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Bivens remedy exists for military detention in a war zone | Doe requests a Bivens remedy | Rumsfeld argues against new Bivens context | Not available; Bivens not extended here |
| Whether special factors counsel hesitation precluding Bivens extension | Special factors not strong enough to bar Bivens | Special factors counsel hesitation | Special factors counsel hesitation; no Bivens remedy |
| Whether congressional action (DTA) precludes a Bivens remedy | Congressional inaction implies a remedy | Congressional action precludes further relief | Congressional inaction and DTA structure preclude Bivens remedy |
| Whether the district court erred by implying a Bivens action | District court correctly implied Bivens | District court lacked authority to imply Bivens | District court erred; Bivens not implied |
| Whether qualified immunity applies if Bivens were available | N/A (no Bivens) | N/A (no Bivens) | Not reached because Bivens rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (establishes Bivens remedy and cautions limits in new contexts)
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1983) (limits on damages in military context)
- United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (U.S. 1987) (reaffirms reluctance to extend Bivens in sensitive contexts)
- Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (U.S. 1950) (military actions generally outside judicial remedy)
- Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (detainees; concerns of national security and military operation)
- Rasul v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (detainee context and policy concerns for Bivens)
- Lebron v. Rumsfeld, 670 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2012) (special factors; policy judgments about detainee treatment)
- Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (national security and intrusion considerations in Bivens)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1988) (special factors counseling hesitation)
- Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617 (S. Ct. 2012) (limits on implied damages actions)
- Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (9th Cir. 2009) (Congressional action and remedial efficacy)