An Originalist Interpretation of Article III Permits and Favors Bivens Actions as a Recognition of the Intrinsic Connection Between Rights and Remedies

Authors

Shrivathsan Margam S

Publication Information

47 Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice 1 (2026)

Abstract

The Bivens Doctrine, which stands for the principle that judges may infer private causes of action for money damages against federal officers from a constitutional text that does not expressly create such remedies, has faced attack from Originalists on the Supreme Court of the United States. Every case seeking to extend the Bivens principle to a new context meets rejection from the Court with concurrences calling for overturning it altogether. This Article will argue that an Originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution, specifically the Original Methods subset of the ascendant lens of Original Public Meaning, permits and counsels in favor of the retention of Bivens actions.

Recommended Citation

Margam S, Shrivathsan (2026) "An Originalist Interpretation of Article III Permits and Favors Bivens Actions as a Recognition of the Intrinsic Connection Between Rights and Remedies," Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice: Vol. 47: Iss. 1, Article 1.
Available at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/policypractice/vol47/iss1/1