Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Schweiker Vs. Chilicky

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 24, 1988

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

70 entries 13 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Bush Vs. Lucas US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1983
  2. Richardson Vs. Perales US Supreme Court · May 03, 1971
  3. Heckler Vs. Day US Supreme Court · May 22, 1984
  4. Heckler Vs. Ringer US Supreme Court · May 14, 1984
  5. Mathews Vs. Eldridge US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1976
  6. Weinberger Vs. Salfi US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1975
  7. Zuber Vs. Allen US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1969
  8. Heckler Vs. Campbell US Supreme Court · May 16, 1983
  9. Harlow Vs. Fitzgerald US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1982
  10. Bell Vs. Hood US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1946
  11. Chappell Vs. Wallace US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1983
  12. United States Vs. Stanley US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1987
  13. Schweiker Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1982
  14. U.S. 412 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Schweiker v. Chilicky
    Search
  15. U.S. 412 (1988) Schweiker v. Chilicky
    Search
  16. remanded, noting that respondents' money damages claims were predicated on the constitutional tort theory of Bivens v. Six
    Search
  17. to Page 487 U. S. 413 the claimant. Bush v. Lucas
    Search
  18. Brief for Petitioners 10. Cf. Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  19. App. to Pet. for Cert. 16a (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  20. predicated on the constitutional tort theory of Bivens v. Six
    Search
  21. acting under color of their authority may bring suit for money damages against the officers in federal court. Bivens v. Six
    Search
  22. Id. at 403 U. S. 396 -397 (quoting Bell v. Hood
    Search
  23. for violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Davis v. Passman
    Search
  24. U. S. 228 (1979), and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, Carlson v. Green
    Search
  25. award money damages against the Page 487 U. S. 422 officers responsible for the violation. Thus, in Chappell v. Wallace
    Search
  26. citation omitted). See also United States v. Stanley
    Search
  27. provision. See Brief for Respondents 32-33. The case before us cannot reasonably be distinguished from Bush v. Lucas
    Search
  28. is no more questionable in the social welfare context than it is in the civil service context. Cf. Forrester v. White
    Search
  29. have been allowed, such as federal law enforcement agencies ( Bivens itself) or the federal prisons ( Carlson v. Green
    Search
  30. the inevitable compromises required in the design of a massive and complex welfare benefits program. Cf. Dandridge v. Williams
    Search
  31. CA9 1986) (opinion below). We may assume, arguendo, that, if an action akin to the one recognized in Bivens v. Six
    Search
  32. Relying on Heckler v. Ringer
    Search
  33. U. S. 602 , 466 U. S. 614 -616, 466 U. S. 620 -626 (1984), and Weinberger v. Salfi
    Search
  34. See Bowen v. Michigan
    Search
  35. that Congress has enacted a statute that expressly requires dismissal of the complaint. See, e.g., Schweiker v. Hogan
    Search
  36. Ante at 487 U. S. 421 (quoting Bivens v. Six
    Search
  37. Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 , 403 U. S. 396 -397 (1971), in turn quoting Bell v. Hood
    Search
  38. remedy for constitutional injuries inflicted during the course of previous review proceedings. In Chappell v. Wallace
    Search
  39. consequential damages, notably retroactive promotions. Id. at 462 U. S. 303 . Similarly, in Bush v. Lucas
    Search
  40. we have repeatedly stated, is a notoriously poor indication of congressional intent, see, e.g., Bob Jones University v. United
    Search
  41. Id. at 462 U. S. 302 (quoting Gilligan v. Morgan
    Search
  42. see Bivens, 403 U.S. at 403 U. S. 396 , is clearly mistaken. In Davis v. Passman
    Search
  43. of Title VII). Likewise, in Carlson v. Green
    Search
  44. h),' as we made clear in Weinberger v. Salfi
    Search
  45. Page 487 U. S. 445 Bowen v. Michigan
    Search
  46. the exhaustion requirement might impose on remedies available through that process are inapplicable here. Cf. Heckler v. Ringer
    Search
  47. forestalling attempts to circumvent that process under the guise of independent constitutional challenges. See Heckler v. Ringer
    Search
  48. responsible for Page 487 U. S. 447 processing over two million disability claims each year. Heckler v. Day
    Search
  49. such as respondents must both prove a deliberate abuse of governmental power, rather than mere negligence, see Daniels v. Williams
    Search
  50. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial