Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Federal Courts
Federal CourtsBivensSocial SecurityDue ProcessBivensimplied cause of actionspecial factors counselling hesitationSocial Security disability benefits
Facts
Respondents were disability-benefit recipients whose Title II Social Security benefits were terminated during the continuing disability review program in 1981 and 1982. Two respondents pursued administrative appeals, were restored to disabled status, and received full retroactive benefits; the third filed a new application and received one year's retroactive benefits, with additional restoration still pending. They alleged that officials adopted unlawful policies that caused wrongful terminations, including use of improper standards, disregard of evidence, and quotas. Because their terminations occurred before legislation allowed benefits to continue during review, they endured months without benefits and claimed emotional distress and loss of basic necessities.
Issue
May federal courts imply a Bivens cause of action for money damages against officials who allegedly violated due process in administering the Social Security disability benefits program, where Congress created an elaborate administrative and judicial remedial scheme but did not authorize such damages?
Rule
Courts should not create a new Bivens damages remedy when the design of a government program indicates that Congress has provided what it considers adequate remedial mechanisms for constitutional violations arising in the program's administration. This is so even when the statutory scheme does not provide complete relief, such as consequential or emotional-distress damages.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Ohio, Lena Ortiz received federal housing-subsidy payments through a nationwide benefits program administered by a federal department under a detailed statute. After agency supervisors allegedly imposed unlawful internal screening rules, her payments were terminated for six months; she eventually won reinstatement and full back payments through the program's multilayer administrative appeal and judicial-review process. She then sues the federal supervisors personally for money damages for emotional distress and loss of utilities.
Should a federal court most likely recognize an implied damages action against the supervisors?
Explanation. The majority's rule is that courts should not imply a Bivens damages remedy where the design of a government program indicates Congress provided what it considered adequate remedial mechanisms for constitutional violations in administering that program. That remains true even if the scheme does not provide complete relief, such as emotional-distress or other consequential damages. The fact that Lena recovered only the withheld benefits does not justify judicially adding personal-capacity damages.