Goldey v. Fields: SCOTUS Slams Door on New Bivens Claims for Prisoner Excessive Force

The Supreme Court’s recent per curiam decision in Goldey v. Fields (2025) marks another pivotal moment in the evolution of Bivens remedies the judicially created damages actions against federal officers for constitutional violations.

The Court, in a concise but significant ruling, reversed the Fourth Circuit and held that federal prisoners cannot pursue Eighth Amendment excessive force claims under Bivens.

The decision reinforces the Court’s long-standing reluctance to expand Bivens beyond its original contexts and reaffirms that Congress, not the judiciary, should determine whether to authorize such lawsuits.

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents (1971), the Supreme Court recognized an implied cause of action for damages against federal agents who violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.

The Court later permitted Bivens claims in two additional narrow scenarios: gender discrimination under the 5th Amendment (Davis v. Passman, 1979) and prisoner medical neglect under the 8th Amendment (Carlson v. Green, 1980).

However, since 1980, the Court has repeatedly declined to extend Bivens to new contexts. Recent cases like Egbert v. Boule (2022) have emphasized that implying damages remedies is now a “disfavored judicial activity” best left to Congress.

Goldey continues this trend, applying the Court’s now-familiar two-step test:

1. Does the case present a “new context” under Bivens?

   
   

2. If so, do “special factors” counsel hesitation in recognizing a new remedy?

   
   

What's The Matter?

Andrew Fields, a federal prisoner at USP Lee County, Virginia, alleged that officers physically abused him during routine checks while he was held in solitary confinement. He sued under Bivens, claiming violations of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The District Court dismissed his claim, finding it arose in a new context not covered by Bivens.

The Fourth Circuit reversed, allowing the case to proceed in a divided 2-1 ruling. Judge Richardson dissented, arguing that Supreme Court precedent barred the judiciary from creating a new Bivens remedy.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Court swiftly reversed the Fourth Circuit, holding that Fields’ excessive force claim differs meaningfully from Carlson’s medical neglect claim, as it implicates distinct constitutional considerations and involves different kinds of officer conduct.

In evaluating whether to extend Bivens, the Court highlighted several special factors that weigh against such an extension.

Notably, Congress has been active in legislating on prisoner litigation, particularly through statutes like the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), yet it has deliberately refrained from creating a damages remedy for Eighth Amendment violations by federal officers.

The Court also emphasized the complexity of prison administration, cautioning that recognizing new damages actions could interfere with prison operations an area it has long described as “an inordinately difficult undertaking.”

Furthermore, it pointed to existing alternative remedies, such as the administrative grievance procedures available to federal prisoners, even if these are considered less effective than judicial relief.

The decision carries significant implications, especially for federal prisoners, who now face heightened barriers to seeking relief.

By effectively foreclosing damages suits for excessive force within federal prisons unless Congress explicitly provides for them, the ruling channels inmates toward administrative processes or internal DOJ investigations avenues critics argue offer insufficient accountability.

The decision has sparked debate over the balance between judicial restraint and constitutional protection. Supporters of the ruling argue that the Court appropriately deferred to Congress, thereby avoiding judicial overreach in a sensitive policy area.

Critics, however, warn that this approach renders constitutional rights largely unenforceable against federal officers, leaving victims without any meaningful form of redress.

Ultimately, the ruling further entrenches Bivens as a vestige of a more expansive judicial era, signaling that any future extension of such remedies will depend entirely on congressional initiative a prospect many view as unlikely in the near term.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Goldey v. Fields confirms its resistance to expanding Bivens lawsuits, leaving it to Congress to create new remedies for constitutional rights violations.

The decision limits the ability of federal prisoners to sue for damages and reinforces the Court's position that providing such remedies is a legislative, not judicial, responsibility.