# Wilkie v. Robbins

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 25, 2007 · 551 U.S. 537

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435016

## Case

- **Full name:** Wilkie Et Al. v. Robbins
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 25, 2007
- **Citations:** 551 U.S. 537; 127 S. Ct. 2588; 168 L. Ed. 2d 389; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8513
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Thomas
- **Judges:** Souter, Roberts, Scaxia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Stevens, Ginsburg, Scalia
- **Cited by:** 642 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/9435016

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the first step of the Bivens analysis involves determining “whether any alternative, existing process for protecting the interest amounts to a convincing reason for the Judicial Branch to refrain from providing a new and freestanding remedy in damages” and that th…
- explaining that a “factor counseling hesitation” is the existence of an “alternative, existing process for protecting the interest amounts to a convincing reason for the Judicial Branch to refrain from providing a new and freestanding remedy in damages”
- discussing the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and stating, “the Act itself does not provide for a standalone damages remedy against federal jailers. It could be argued that this suggests Congress chose not to extend the Carlson damages remedy to cases involving other ty…
- rejecting plaintiff’s “fall back” argument that defendants’ violation of Wyoming’s blackmail statute was a separate predicate offense because “the conduct alleged does not fit the traditional definition of extortion, so [the] RICO claim does not survive on a theory of state-la…
- declining to recognize a Bivens remedy 17 where a landowner brought Fifth Amendment due process claims against BLM 18 employees, reasoning that allowing Bivens claims to proceed would inappropriately invite 19 challenges to broad spheres of legitimate government action

## Opinion text

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 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435016. Public record. Not legal advice.