## Facts

- After the September 11 attacks, federal officials detained numerous noncitizens on immigration charges while investigating possible terrorism ties.
- Six noncitizen men of Arab or South Asian descent, mostly Muslim, were held for three to six months at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn and later removed from the United States.
- The detainees were classified as “of interest” and allegedly were “held until cleared,” resulting in prolonged detention while the FBI completed clearance checks.
- They were placed in MDC’s restrictive special housing unit and alleged punitive conditions: 23-hour cell confinement, constant lighting, frequent strip searches, and use of shackles.
- They also alleged physical and verbal abuse by MDC staff, including being slammed into walls and called slurs such as “terrorist.”
- Plaintiffs sued high-level federal officials (Attorney General Ashcroft, FBI Director Mueller, and INS Commissioner Ziglar) and MDC wardens (Hasty and Sherman), seeking damages under an implied constitutional cause of action (Bivens) and asserting a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
- The Second Circuit allowed key claims to proceed; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the detainees’ challenges to post-9/11 detention and restrictive confinement policies presented a “new context” requiring refusal to extend a Bivens damages remedy.
2. Whether “special factors” counseled hesitation in creating a Bivens remedy for national-security and immigration detention policymaking and related confinement conditions.
3. Whether the prisoner-abuse claim against Warden Hasty could proceed under Bivens without applying the “special factors” analysis.
4. Whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1985(3) conspiracy claim alleging discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin.

## Decision

- The Court reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part.
- It held that Bivens would not be extended to the detention-policy claims against the high-level officials and wardens challenging restrictive confinement policies adopted after 9/11.
- It vacated and remanded the judgment allowing the prisoner-abuse claim against Warden Hasty to proceed, directing application of the Bivens “special factors” analysis.
- It held the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1985(3) conspiracy claim and required dismissal of that claim.

## Legal Principles

- Extending Bivens to new contexts is a disfavored judicial action; courts must first determine whether a claim arises in a new context compared to prior recognized Bivens settings.
- A context is “new” if it differs in meaningful ways, including the rank of officials involved, the policy setting, and the risk of judicial intrusion into executive functions.
- If a claim presents a new context, courts must consider whether special factors counsel hesitation before implying a damages remedy, including separation-of-powers concerns, national-security considerations, and the risk of interfering with executive policymaking.
- Congressional action and remedial design matter: legislative attention to prison litigation (including the PLRA) without creating a damages remedy against federal officers weighs against judicial creation of one.
- The existence of alternative processes (such as habeas, injunctive or declaratory relief, internal review, and political-branch oversight) can support declining to imply a damages remedy even if they do not provide damages.
- Qualified immunity applies unless the asserted statutory or constitutional liability was clearly established at the time; uncertainty about § 1985(3)’s application to federal officials and intra-department “conspiracy” supported immunity.

## Conclusion

The Court declined to recognize a new Bivens damages remedy for policy-level post-9/11 detention and confinement decisions, required a special-factors inquiry before any Bivens extension for the alleged prisoner abuse, and dismissed the § 1985(3) conspiracy claim on qualified-immunity grounds.


Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017)