Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843

Background

After 9/11, federal authorities detained hundreds of noncitizen aliens; six men of Arab or South Asian descent were held at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center’s special unit for 3–8 months under restrictive conditions (constant light, >23-hour cell confinement, frequent strip searches, limited communication, shackling). Some guards allegedly engaged in physical and verbal abuse.
Plaintiffs (the six detainees, on behalf of a putative class) sued five federal officials: three high-level DOJ/FBI/INS executives (Ashcroft, Mueller, Ziglar) and two MDC wardens (Hasty, Sherman). Claims sought Bivens damages for constitutional violations (Fifth Amendment substantive due process and equal protection; Fourth Amendment for strip searches) and a §1985(3) conspiracy claim for deprivation of equal protection.
District Court dismissed claims against the Executive Officials but allowed claims against the Wardens; the Second Circuit reinstated claims against the Executive Officials and largely affirmed as to the Wardens. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court treated as true the pleaded factual allegations and framed two categories: (1) detention-policy claims challenging high-level, policy-driven confinement conditions and strip-search practices; and (2) a prisoner-abuse claim alleging that Warden Hasty knowingly allowed guard abuse.
The Court applied Bivens doctrine and the “special factors” framework to decide whether to recognize an implied damages remedy against federal officials and also addressed qualified immunity for the §1985(3) conspiracy claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bivens implied damages remedy extends to high-level detention-policy claims challenging post‑9/11 confinement conditions and executive policy decisions	Abbasi: Bivens supports damages for unconstitutional confinement conditions and discriminatory treatment by federal officials	Petitioners: Extending Bivens to high-level policy decisions intrudes on executive/national-security functions and raises special factors counseling hesitation	Held: No Bivens extension for detention-policy claims; courts should defer to Congress (reversed as to these claims)
Whether Bivens extends to prisoner‑abuse claim (warden’s deliberate indifference to guard abuse)	Abbasi: Carlson and other precedents support Bivens remedy for prison mistreatment claims	Hasty: Extending Bivens is inappropriate here given differences in constitutional provision (Fifth v. Eighth), alternative remedies, and special factors	Held: Claim plausibly pleads constitutional violation but Court remanded for lower courts to perform special-factors analysis (judgment vacated and remanded)
Whether §1985(3) conspiracy claim survives or defendants have qualified immunity	Abbasi: Petitioners conspired to deprive equal protection — §1985(3) provides damages	Petitioners: Qualified immunity; uncertainty whether intra-department coordination can constitute a §1985(3) “conspiracy” and defendants lacked clearly established notice	Held: Petitioners entitled to qualified immunity on §1985(3) claim because the law was not clearly established (reversed)
Proper test for determining a "new Bivens context" and role of special factors	Abbasi: Court of Appeals erred by not treating context as new and not conducting special-factors analysis	Petitioners: Special factors (rank, national security, risk of intrusive discovery, alternative remedies, Congress’ silence) counsel against Bivens expansion	Held: Adopted a test: if case differs in a meaningful way from prior Bivens precedents, it is a new context and special factors analysis is required; expansion is disfavored

Key Cases Cited

Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy for Fourth Amendment violation)
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (Bivens‑type remedy for Fifth Amendment gender‑discrimination claim)
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical need)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (heightened pleading standards and caution against extending Bivens)
Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (refusal to extend Bivens to private prison operator; Bivens expansion disfavored)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for discretionary officials)
Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (framework for analyzing new Bivens contexts and alternative remedies)
Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (Congressional silence and alternative remedies inform implied‑cause‑of‑action analysis)
Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (availability of alternative remedies limits Bivens)
Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (declining Bivens extension to federal employment context)
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (deference to Executive on national‑security matters)