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.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 85 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 Roger Vanderklok v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Roger Vanderklok v. United States Anchor | green | “has repeatedly refused to extend bivens actions beyond the specific clauses of the specific amendments of the constitution for which a cause of action has already been implied, or even to other classes of defendants facing liability under those same clauses.” | 33 |
| 2 | Jordan Dongarra v. D. Smith | green | “these three cases - bivens, davis, and carlson - represent the only instances in which the supreme court has approved of an implied damages remedy under the constitution itself.” | 15 |
| 3 | Xiaoxing Xi v. Andrew Haugen | green | “in the fifty-two years since bivens was decided, . . . the supreme court has pulled back the reins to what appears to be a full stop and no farther.” | 12 |
| 4 | Charles Mack v. John Yost | green | “special factors counsel hesitation in expanding bivens.” | 11 |
| 5 | Hernández v. Mesa | green | “in the fifty-two years since bivens was decided, . . . the supreme court has pulled back the reins to what appears to be a full stop and no farther.” | 7 |
| 6 | Jordan Dongarra v. D. Smith | green | “to preserve the separation of powers, the court has 'consistently rebuffed' efforts to extend bivens further . . . because the constitution entrusts congress, not the courts, with the power to create new federal causes of action and remedies.” | 7 |
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.