October Term 2011 · Docket 10-1104
Should federal prisoners sue under Bivens when state law offers no remedy?
The dispute centers on whether federal prisoners can use Bivens claims when state law fails to provide an adequate alternative remedy.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Franklin argued that Bivens remedies are disfavored and require narrow conditions.
Mr. Shah argued that judicial extension of Bivens remedies is not the default presumption.
justice_kennedy_questioned_statute_of_limitations
justice_ginsburg_questioned_state_prisoner_recourse
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of Bivens remedies for federal prisoners. The core issue is whether the absence of a state-law remedy justifies a federal constitutional claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 1, 2011.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to allow a Bivens claim because state law offers no adequate remedy.
the opposing side wants the Court to deny the Bivens claim because other factors counsel hesitation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues Bivens remedies are appropriate when no adequate alternative remedy exists.
the opposing side argues Bivens remedies are disfavored and require specific conditions that are not met here.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked if the statute of limitations was the only issue.
Justice Ginsburg asked if state prisoners would use Section 1983 instead of Bivens.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-7
Why it matters
This case defines the availability of federal constitutional remedies for prisoners. It determines whether state law gaps trigger federal judicial intervention. The outcome shapes the balance between federal and state legal systems.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-11 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.