Case Citator › Davis v. Passman

Davis v. Passman

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
442 U.S. 228
Decided
Confirmed treatments
4
Flagged citations read
62 of 62
Citing cases (total)
62
Treatment dates
2007–2025
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Davis v. Passman remains a recognized Fifth Amendment damages remedy for congressional employment discrimination, but later courts declined to extend it in the 4 treatments listed below. All 62 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The later rulings concern private information disclosures, a detainee’s medical care, prison due process and discrimination, and detention and prosecution by federal agents. None overruled Davis’s original holding.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

62 later cases cite Davis v. Passman; 62 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Davis v. Passman?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The court refused to extend Davis’s Fifth Amendment damages remedy to federal officials’ disclosure of private information, holding that the Privacy Act counseled against a new implied remedy.

    Wilson v. Libby · D.D.C. · filed

    And while Davis established that a congressional employee may assert a Bivens remedy under the Due Process Clause for unconstitutional employment discrimination, see 442 U.S. at 248, 99 S.Ct. 2264, ... The proper question, then, is not whether plaintiffs may assert a Bivens remedy for a First or Fifth Amendment violation, but whether they may do so on the basis of the disclosure by federal officials of allegedly private information concerning Mrs. Wilson that was maintained within the Executive Branch. Answering this question requires consideration of the Privacy Act. ... The Court finds, therefore, that the Privacy Act is a special factor counseling against the implication of a Bivens remedy for plaintiffs’ claims.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court declined to extend Davis’s remedy for congressional employment discrimination to a federal detainee’s deliberate indifference claim.

    Dean v. Robinson · W.D.N.Y. · filed

    Applying these principles to this case, it is apparent that the Court cannot extend the Bivens remedy to the context presented here. First, the context is undeniably a new one. ... 6 Davis recognized a cause of action for a violation of rights under the Fifth Amendment, but in the entirely unrelated context of sex discrimination by a member of Congress. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable under Bivens, and summary judgment must be granted in favor of Defendants.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court declined to extend Davis’s remedy to a federal inmate’s Fifth Amendment procedural due process and race discrimination claims against prison officials.

    Mays v. Smith · Fourth Circuit · filed

    Mays’s claims may “mirror” those in Davis. Opening Br. at 38. But reflection is not enough: “a new context may arise if even one distinguishing fact has the potential to implicate separation-of-powers considerations.” Tate, 54 F.4th at 846 (citing Egbert, 142 S. Ct. at 1805). For the reasons given, we conclude that Mays’s procedural due process and race-based equal protection claims have distinguishing factors from the Supreme Court’s three Bivens cases such that each arises in a “new context.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court declined to extend Davis’s remedy to detention and malicious prosecution claims against federal agents.

    Benderoff v. Johansen · E.D. Mich. · filed

    The Court first notes that just because Benderoff here asserts Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims, the same constitutional provisions at issue in Bivens and Davis, that alone does not demonstrate that these claims would be a permissible extension of Bivens. It is settled law that “[a] claim may arise in a new context even if it is based on the same constitutional provision as a claim in a case in which a damages remedy was previously recognized.” Hernandez, 589 U.S. at 103. ... It cannot reasonably be disputed that this case differs from Bivens and Davis. ... And the facts of this case are fundamentally different from those in Davis, a due process claim against a congressman for gender discrimination. ... For these reasons, the Court concludes that Benderoff’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment Bivens claims in Counts II and IV of his FAC present a new context under Bivens and that special factors counsel against extending an implied cause of action here. Accordingly, Benderoff’s Bivens claims in Counts II and IV of his FAC will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Davis v. Passman and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace