Chappell v. Wallace

Supreme Court of the United States · 1983 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsBivensMilitary affairsBivensmilitary disciplinespecial factorssuperior officersenlisted personnel

Facts

Respondents were five enlisted men serving in the United States Navy aboard a combat naval vessel, and petitioners were the vessel's commanding officer, four lieutenants, and three noncommissioned officers. Respondents alleged that because of their minority race, the officers assigned them undesirable duties, threatened them, gave them low performance evaluations, and imposed unusually severe penalties. They claimed these acts deprived them of constitutional and federal rights, including the right not to be discriminated against because of race. They sought damages from their superior officers, along with declaratory and injunctive relief.

Issue

Whether enlisted military personnel may maintain suits to recover damages from superior officers for alleged constitutional violations suffered in the course of military service. More specifically, the question was whether a Bivens-type damages remedy should be implied in that military context.

Rule

Enlisted military personnel may not maintain a Bivens-type suit for damages against superior officers for alleged constitutional violations arising out of or in the course of military service, because the unique disciplinary structure of the Military Establishment and Congress' comprehensive regulation of military justice are special factors counseling hesitation against creating such a remedy.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Evan Ortiz, an enlisted Army specialist stationed near El Paso, alleges that his captain intentionally assigned him degrading work and fabricated disciplinary write-ups because Ortiz had complained about unequal treatment within the unit. Ortiz files a federal action seeking money damages directly under the Constitution from the captain in his personal capacity.

Should the federal court recognize Ortiz's damages action?

Explanation. The majority held that enlisted military personnel may not maintain a Bivens-type suit for damages against superior officers for alleged constitutional violations arising out of or in the course of military service. The Court's reasoning rested on special factors counseling hesitation: the military's unique disciplinary hierarchy and Congress' comprehensive regulation of military justice. The bar is not contingent on qualified immunity or scope-of-authority analysis.