Justices look to limit lawsuits against federal prison officials

With precedent on the outs, the justices seemed to steer lawsuits against federal officials through legislative pathways.WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Monday looked likely to further curtail pathways to hold federal officials accountable for wrongdoing.During oral arguments, the conservative justices seemed to side with a Honolulu paramedic fighting a $3 million lawsuit for denying medical treatment to an inmate at a federal detention center.Francis Nielsen argued that the high court’s landmark precedents no longer provided a path for such claims. And a majority of the justices appeared to agree, suggesting that federal law was now the only way to pursue accountability.Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch, both Donald Trump appointees, pointed to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The FTCA allows individuals to sue the federal government instead of individuals.“That’s a really good advantage when you’re a plaintiffs’ lawyer,” Gorsuch said. “I used to be one, and I always liked to have a deep-pocket defendant.”Congress empowered individuals to sue state and local government officials who violate their federal constitutional rights after the Civil War in a law known as Section 1983. No similar remedy existed against federal officials’ wrongdoing until 1971, when the Supreme Court ruled in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.Since then, the Supreme Court has only extended Bivens twice. In 1979, the court allowed a staffer to sue a member of Congress for sex discrimination in Davis v. Passman. And in 1980, the justices permitted the family of an inmate to sue prison officials who failed to provide him medical assistance during an asthma attack leading to the prisoner’s death in Carlson v. Green.Bivens has fallen out of favor with the Supreme Court, which has refused to extend the precedent over a dozen times in recent years. But the justices have allowed a limited number of suits that fit within the current precedents to continue.Monday’s oral argument suggested that the high court will further hollow out any remaining Bivens claims.Kekai Watanabe was assaulted while incarcerated in 2021, resulting in a fractured tailbone. Despite his repeated complaints and requests for medical assistance, he was only given over-the-counter medication. Seven months after the assault, the extent of Watanabe’s injuries was discovered in an X-ray. Bone chips from the fractured tailbone had migrated into the surrounding soft tissue, causing him intense pain that continues today.Despite the similar facts, Nielsen argued that the cases were different because an inmate died in Carlson. The distinction raised some eyebrows across the bench.“It’s a very harsh rule,” Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, said. “If you say to somebody, well, if he dies, that’s one thing, but if there’s a life-long, extremely severe disability, that’s in a different box entirely.”The liberal justices worried about foreclosing any future Carlson claims if Watanabe’s case couldn’t move forward. But Nielsen argued it was Congress’ job to change that, not the justices.Several justices questioned what would be left of Bivens if the high court directly or indirectly overruled Carlson. But Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, suggested that the high court take a piecemeal approach.“It could be viewed as a cautious, incremental approach to such a fundamental question,” Roberts said.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads