Abstract

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court held that a case of action for damages against federal law enforcement offices who violate the fourth amendment could be inferred directly from constitutional provisions. Through analysis of the reasoning which necessarily underlies such a holding, the author draws several general conclusions about the respective roles of the Court and Congres in creating and restricting remedies effectuating constitutional guarantees. He then applies his analysis to the possibilities for independant judicial creation of an action against governmental units and for legislative replacement of the exclusionary rule with compensatory remedies against fisc.