Supreme Court Sounds Ready to Further Limit Suits Against Federal Officers
The justices heard arguments Monday in a case that could narrow or end the right to sue individual federal officers for constitutional violations, with several justices signaling sympathy for the government's position.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sounded likely on Monday to rule against a federal prisoner who says he was denied medical care after a prison attack, in a case that could narrow or end the right to sue individual federal officers for constitutional violations.
A 2021 prison attack and a $3 million suit
Kekai Watanabe, now 40, was beaten with a makeshift weapon known as a “lock in a sock” during a gang fight at a federal prison in Honolulu in 2021. He says a prison nurse, Francis Nielsen, denied him proper care, gave him over-the-counter pain medication and told him to “stop being a cry baby.” An X-ray taken months later showed a fractured tailbone, with bone chips that had moved into nearby soft tissue. He received no further treatment before his release in 2024. Watanabe sued the nurse for $3 million, saying the denial of care violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
A federal appeals court let the claim go ahead, saying it matched a 1980 Supreme Court decision in which the court found prison staff had violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to respond to a prisoner’s fatal asthma attack. The Justice Department argues that the 1980 decision is now “obsolete” because later rulings have limited its reach.
The 1971 precedent at issue
The nurse’s lawyers asked the justices to go further and throw out the 1971 decision that underpins the 1980 ruling. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, the court said federal officers can be sued for money damages. The decision is criticized by conservatives who say the court at the time granted rights that are not spelled out in the Constitution.
“Congress is really supposed to be making all of these damages remedies decisions,” Lucas Walker, the lawyer for the nurse, told the court. Chief Justice John Roberts said the court could also take a narrower path: “On the other hand, it could be viewed as a cautious, incremental approach to such a fundamental question.”
Several justices asked why prisoners cannot use other routes, including the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows suits for money damages against the United States. Joshua Wesneski, the lawyer for Watanabe, said prisoners face practical problems using that law, and that the chance of personal liability deters officers from violating rights. “Prisoners have been long understood as uniquely vulnerable,” Wesneski said. “If we’re going to hold up deterrence in any place, I think it has to be in this context where we know these individuals are uniquely susceptible to constitutional violations.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why Congress has not passed a law making it explicit whether people can or cannot sue federal officers. Vivek Surki, a lawyer with the Justice Department, said lawmakers may not have had the votes to act. “Congress has a responsibility to make the tough choices about what types of damages actions are to be available, both in prisons and in other contexts,” Surki said. “And if Congress is abdicating that responsibility to the judiciary, that’s the reason for the court to course correct.”
The case has drawn wider attention because of calls to hold federal immigration agents to account, including after the fatal shootings of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, who filed a brief in the case, said the question is whether the country will hold federal law enforcement officers to account “when they violate clearly established constitutional rights.”
A decision in Nielsen v. Watanabe is expected by the end of June.
Reporting based on coverage by USA Today and KNKX Public Radio.
