Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 1,446 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Ziglar v. Abbasi.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ziglar v. Abbasi Anchor | green | “expanding the bivens remedy is now a 'disfavored' judicial activity.” | 367 |
| 2 | Ziglar v. Abbasi | green | “these three cases-bivens, davis, and carlson-represent the only instances in which the court has approved of an implied damages remedy under the constitution itself.” | 253 |
| 3 | Camreta v. Greene Ex Rel. S. G. | green | “a decision of a federal district court judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case.” | 221 |
| 4 | Ziglar v. Abbasi | green | “the inquiry must concentrate on whether the judiciary is well suited, absent congressional action or instruction, to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.” | 219 |
| 5 | Hernandez v. Mesa | green | “a claim may arise in a new context even if it is based on the same constitutional provision as a claim in a case in which a damages remedy was previously recognized.” | 169 |
| 6 | Reichle v. Howards | green | “we have never held that bivens extends to first amendment claims.” | 117 |
| 7 | Camreta v. Greene Ex Rel. S. G. | green | “district court decisions-unlike those from the courts of appeals-do not necessarily settle constitutional standards.” | 35 |
| 8 | Jose Chavez v. James Ziglar | green | “bivens claims cannot proceed on a theory of respondeat superior, but must instead plead that a supervisor, by her 'own individual actions,' violated the constitution.” | 19 |
| 9 | Charles Mack v. John Yost | green | “particularly weighty': the availability of an alternative remedial structure and separation-of-powers concerns.” | 19 |
| 10 | Charles Mack v. John Yost | green | “consistently refused to expand bivens actions beyond these three specific contexts.” | 15 |
| 11 | Gordon Reid v. United States | green | “a claim for damages based on individualized mistreatment by rank-and-file federal officers is exactly what bivens was meant to address.” | 12 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.