Davis v. Passman
- Decided
- June 5, 1979
- Docket
- 78-5072
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,039 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause provides a damages remedy claim of gender discrimination — Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth. (2018)
- holding that equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause gives rise to Bivens employment discrimination action — Lee Yeager v. General Motors Corporation (2001)
- holding that former 12 congressional staff member could sue U.S. Congressman for damages under Fifth Amendment for discriminating against her on basis of sex — Doe v. Hagenbeck (2017)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), held that a “cause of action for damages” arises under [*230] the Constitution when Fourth Amendment rights are violated. The issue presented for decision in this case is whether a cause of action and a damages remedy can also be implied directly under the Constitution when.the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, en banc, concluded that “no civil action for damages” can be thus implied. 571 F. 2d 793, 801 (1978). We granted certiorari, 439 U. S. 925 (1978), and we now reverse.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.