Lebron Ex Rel. Padilla v. Rumsfeld, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1246

Padilla, a U.S. citizen and al Qaeda member, was designated an enemy combatant under the AUMF and detained militarily.
He was held at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston beginning in 2002, where he alleges abuse and restricted access to counsel and courts.
Padilla was transferred to civilian custody in 2006, later convicted in 2007 in the Southern District of Florida and is serving a prison term.
Padilla filed suit in 2007 seeking a declaration that the detention policies were unconstitutional, an injunction against future combatant designations, and nominal damages from each defendant.
Seven defendants remained in suit: four former high-level Defense Department policymakers, two former brig commanders, and the current Secretary of Defense; other potential defendants were dismissed.
The district court dismissed the action; on appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, addressing Bivens and RFRA claims and standing for future designation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Bivens damages action lies against senior Defense officials	Padilla seeks damages for unconstitutional detention policy.	Bivens should not be extended to this context; Congress should provide remedy if any.	No Bivens relief; claims dismissed.
Whether special factors counsel hesitation in recognizing a Bivens action here	Judicial review is needed to check unconstitutional policies.	Military and national security matters are for Congress/Executive, not courts.	Special factors counsel hesitation; decline to recognize Bivens claim.
Whether an alternative remedy exists that defeats a Bivens claim	Damages remedy should be available regardless of habeas mechanisms.	There are extensive habeas and other statutory avenues; Congress has not created a damages remedy.	Alternative remedies suffice; Bivens not warranted.
RFRA claim viability against federal officers in military detention	RFRA should permit damages against officials for religious exercise burdens.	RFRA does not clearly apply to enemy combatants in military detention; qualified immunity available.	RFRA claim dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds.
Whether Padilla has standing to seek an injunction against future enemy combatant designation	Past designation and potential future designation create imminent injury.	Past exposure and remote future risk do not establish imminent injury; standing lacking.	Standing not established; injunction claim dismissed.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (establishes implied damages remedies but with strict limits)
Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (U.S. 2007) (limits implied Bivens remedies; caution against expansion)
Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1983) (bedrock separation-of-powers principle for remedies)
Corrections Serv. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (U.S. 2001) (limits on extending Bivens to new defendant classes)
Stanley v. United States, 483 U.S. 669 (U.S. 1987) (military matters warrant deference to Congress/Executive)
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1952) (presidential actions vs. congressional authority framework)
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2004) (context of enemy combatants and deference to executive decisions)
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (habeas review; limits of court access in detention matters)
O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974) (standing must show real, immediate injury)
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (U.S. 1986) (military regulations and congressional tailoring of authority)
Joshua v. United States, 607 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2010) (military custody, distinct from civilian detainee contexts)
Rasul v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (RFRA applicability in military detention context discussed)