skip navigation
search

WILKIE v. ROBBINS (No. 06-219)
433 F. 3d 755, reversed and remanded.
Syllabus

Opinion
[Souter]
Concurrence
[Thomas]
CDInPart
[Ginsburg]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

551 U. S. ____ (2007)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

CHARLES WILKIE, et al., PETITIONERS v.
HARVEY FRANK ROBBINS

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit


[June 25, 2007]

    Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring.

    The Court correctly concludes that Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971) , does not supply a cause of action in this case. I therefore join its opinion. I write separately because I would not extend Bivens even if its reasoning logically applied to this case. “Bivens is a relic of the heady days in which this Court assumed common-law powers to create causes of action.” Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 75 (2001) (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas, J., concurring). Accordingly, in my view, Bivens and its progeny should be limited “to the precise circumstances that they involved.” Malesko, supra, at 75.