## Facts

- Congress required periodic review of most Title II Social Security disability determinations at least once every three years.
- Federal and state officials implemented a “continuing disability review” (CDR) program in which state agencies conducted initial reviews.
- When a state agency found a beneficiary no longer disabled, benefits were typically terminated immediately, and beneficiaries generally did not receive payments while pursuing administrative appeals.
- Many terminations in 1981–1982 were later determined to be erroneous and were reversed by federal administrative law judges; beneficiaries received reinstatement and back benefits.
- Congress enacted reforms in 1983 and 1984 to address improper terminations, including procedures that could allow continued benefits during parts of the appeal process.
- The beneficiaries alleged that senior officials adopted unlawful policies that produced an unconstitutional pattern of benefit terminations, causing severe interim hardship, including deprivation of basic necessities and emotional distress.
- The beneficiaries sued officials in their individual capacities for money damages under an implied constitutional tort theory (Bivens), seeking compensation beyond back benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged due process violations in administering the CDR program permit an implied Bivens action for money damages against responsible federal (and related state) officials.
2. Whether Congress’s remedial structure for Social Security disability terminations is a “special factor” that bars courts from creating an additional damages remedy, even if statutory relief does not compensate consequential harms.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that no Bivens-type damages remedy exists for wrongful termination of Social Security disability benefits under the CDR program.
- The Court concluded that Congress created a detailed remedial structure for disability determinations, appeals, and retroactive benefits that counsels judicial hesitation.
- The Court held that the availability of meaningful statutory remedies (reinstatement, back benefits, and procedural protections) forecloses a judge-made damages action for consequential injuries such as emotional distress.
- The Court emphasized that the relevant inquiry is the comprehensiveness of the remedial scheme, not whether it provides complete tort-like compensation.
- Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment.
- Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, dissented, arguing that the statutory scheme did not remedy the constitutional injury itself and that damages should be available for serious interim harms.

## Legal Principles

- Courts generally will not imply a Bivens damages remedy where “special factors” counsel hesitation, including when Congress has established a comprehensive remedial mechanism addressing the relevant injuries.
- A statutory scheme can preclude a Bivens remedy even if it does not provide complete relief for all consequences of a constitutional violation.
- When Congress has structured extensive procedures and limited forms of relief for a government program, judicial creation of additional damages remedies is disfavored, particularly where Congress has modified the program to address identified problems yet remained silent on personal damages against officials.
- Refusal to create a Bivens action turns on the comprehensiveness of Congress’s remedial design, not a court’s assessment of whether the remedies are adequate in a damages sense.

## Conclusion

The Court held that beneficiaries whose Social Security disability benefits were wrongfully terminated under the CDR program may not obtain Bivens damages from officials for alleged due process violations because Congress provided a detailed remedial framework—reinstatement, back benefits, and layered administrative and judicial review—that displaces an implied constitutional tort remedy, even though it leaves consequential harms uncompensated.


Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988)