# Schweiker v. Chilicky

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 24, 1988 · 487 U.S. 412

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431422

## Case

- **Full name:** SCHWEIKER Et Al. v. CHILICKY Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 24, 1988
- **Citations:** 487 U.S. 412; 53 Cal. Comp. Cases 597; 56 U.S.L.W. 4767; 108 S. Ct. 2460; 101 L. Ed. 2d 370; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2872
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Rehnquist, White, Scalia, Kennedy, Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
- **Cited by:** 1,053 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431422

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “respondent’s various arguments are rooted in their insistent and vigorous contention that they simply have not been adequately recompensed for their injuries,” but deciding that “Congress ... has addressed the problems created by state agencies’ wrongful termi…
- recognizing that although “suffering months of delay in receiving the income on which one has depended for the very necessities of life cannot be fully remedied by the belated restoration of back benefits” the fact that Congress had made compromises involved in administering a…
- holding that the Social Security Act does not contain a “remedy in damages for emotional distress or for other hardships suffered” from mishandling of claim, and refusing to create Bivens remedy precludes a cause of action for money damages for unconstitutional conduct that le…
- stating that the Court has "responded cautiously to suggestions that Bivens remedies be extended into new contexts" and that "[t]he absence of statutory relief for a constitutional violation . . . does not by any means necessarily imply that courts should award money damages"

## Opinion text

*430 Justice Stevens,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Respondents have asserted that their claims arise under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In my opinion the Court should not reach the issue whether these claims may be brought directly under the Constitution without first deciding whether the Solicitor General is correct in his submission that Congress has enacted a statute that expressly requires dismissal of the complaint. See, e. g., Schweiker v. Hogan, 457 U. S. 569, 585 (1982). I agree with the explanation in Part III-A of Justice Brennan’s opinion of why 42 U. S. C. § 405 (h) does not preclude a Bivens remedy in this case. Accordingly, I join all of the Court’s opinion except footnote 3.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431422. Public record. Not legal advice.