Minneci v. Pollard
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 1, 2011
|Jan 10, 2012||8-1||Breyer||OT 2011|
Holding: Because state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions in this case, no Bivens remedy can be implied.
Judgment: Reversed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on January 10, 2012. Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas, but also joined the Court’s opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion.
- Argument recap: Bivens hurdle too high (Lyle Denniston)
- Argument preview: A new Bivens remedy? (Lyle Denniston)
- New curb on Bivens remedy? (Lyle Denniston)
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for the Petitioners
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
Merits Briefs for the Respondents
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents