Whether an implied cause of action exists for Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against federal officers and whether the Court should reconsider its ability to imply constitutional damages remedies

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Court recognized a n implied cause of action under the Constitution for damages against federal officers for allegedly violating the Fourth Amendment. More recently, however, the Court has cautioned that “if [a] claim arises in a new context, a Bivens remedy is unavailable if there are special factors” —“even a single reason to pause” —“indicating that the Judiciary is at least arguably less equipped than Congress to weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.” Egbert v. Boule , 596 U.S. 482, 492 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted) . All parties have agreed that this case presents a new context —a claim of excessive force under the Eighth Amendment. A divided panel of t he Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s allegations justified implying a new damages cause of action under that constitutional provision. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a n implied cause of action exists for Eighth Amendment excessive force claims. 2. Whether the Court should reconsider the premise that the Judiciary may imply causes of action for damages under the federal Constitution that Congress did not enact .