Bush v. Lucas
462 U.S. 367 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal employee cannot bring a nonstatutory damages action (a Bivens claim) against a superior for an alleged constitutional violation when Congress has established a comprehensive and elaborate remedial scheme to address such claims, even if that scheme does not provide complete relief.
Facts:
- Petitioner Bush was an aerospace engineer at a NASA facility managed by Respondent Lucas.
- In 1974, Bush was reassigned to new positions, which he formally objected to through the Civil Service Commission.
- While his administrative appeals were pending in 1975, Bush made public statements, including on television, that were highly critical of the agency, calling his job worthless and alleging wasteful spending.
- In response to media inquiries, Lucas stated that Bush's claims had 'no basis in fact.'
- Lucas then initiated an adverse personnel action against Bush, charging him with making false and misleading statements that impeded government efficiency.
- Lucas demoted Bush from a GS-14 to a GS-12, resulting in an annual salary decrease of approximately $9,716.
Procedural Posture:
- Bush appealed his demotion to the Federal Employee Appeals Authority (FEAA), which upheld the action.
- Two years later, the Civil Service Commission’s Appeals Review Board reopened the case, found the demotion improper, and recommended reinstatement with backpay, which was accepted.
- While the administrative appeal was pending, Bush sued Lucas in Alabama state court for damages.
- Lucas removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Lucas.
- Bush appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of an intervening decision.
- On remand, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed, holding that Bush had no cause of action for damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal employee have a judicially-created damages remedy against their superior for an alleged violation of their First Amendment rights when a comprehensive federal civil service remedial scheme is available?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. A federal employee does not have a judicially-created damages remedy against their superior for a First Amendment violation where Congress has created a comprehensive remedial scheme governing federal employment. The Court reasoned that federal courts should hesitate to create new judicial remedies in areas where Congress has already established an elaborate, comprehensive scheme. The relationship between the government and its employees is a 'special factor' that counsels hesitation, as it involves matters of federal personnel policy, employee morale, and fiscal considerations that Congress is better equipped to evaluate. Because Congress has provided meaningful, though not complete, remedies for federal employees through the civil service system, it would be inappropriate for the judiciary to supplement that scheme with a new damages action.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
No. While agreeing with the majority, the concurrence emphasizes that a different outcome might be warranted if Congress had not created a comprehensive scheme specifically designed to provide full compensation to civil service employees whose First Amendment rights are violated. The existing administrative procedures are in many ways preferable to a judicial action, as the agency bears the burden of proof and the employee does not have to overcome qualified immunity. The concurrence stresses that the decision does not foreclose a federal employee from pursuing a Bivens remedy where their injury is not attributable to personnel actions that can be remedied under the federal statutory scheme.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the availability of Bivens remedies for federal employees, establishing that the existence of a comprehensive statutory scheme constitutes a 'special factor counselling hesitation' that precludes the creation of a judicial damages remedy. It demonstrates the Court's deference to Congress in specialized areas like federal personnel policy, even when constitutional rights are at stake. The decision means that federal employees alleging constitutional violations arising from their employment must generally rely on the remedies provided by the Civil Service Reform Act, rather than suing their supervisors for damages.
Unlock the full brief for Bush v. Lucas