Supreme Court Takes Up Whether Federal Prisoners Can Sue Prison Staff Who Deny Medical Care

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Monday in a case that will help decide when people can sue federal officials for violating their constitutional rights. The case, Nielsen v. Watanabe, involves a federal prisoner who says a prison nurse refused to send him to a hospital after he broke his tailbone.

According to the MacArthur Justice Center, which supports the prisoner, Kekai Watanabe was assaulted in 2021 while held at FDC Honolulu, a federal facility. The group says he reported severe pain and asked for hospital care, and that a staff nurse told him to “stop being a crybaby.” The center says he received only over-the-counter medication. An X-ray about seven months later showed a fractured tailbone, with bone fragments that had moved into the surrounding soft tissue. The center says prison officials agreed he should see a specialist, but he got no further treatment for more than two years, until his release.

Watanabe sued for money damages. He had no federal law written for this kind of claim, so he relied on a doctrine from a Supreme Court case called Bivens, which lets people sue federal officials over certain constitutional violations even when Congress has not passed a law allowing it. That is the legal route to sue federal officials directly, and the justices have narrowed it over time. A federal district court dismissed Watanabe’s case, finding that his claim differed too much from earlier cases where the Court allowed these suits. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. It relied on Carlson v. Green, a 1980 case in which a prisoner’s mother was allowed to sue prison employees after her son died following inadequate asthma treatment.

Francis Nielsen, the prison staff nurse Watanabe sued, asked the Supreme Court to step in. Nielsen’s lawyer, Jeffrey Lamken, argued in court filings that the Court has limited Bivens suits to three situations it has already recognized, and that Watanabe’s case falls outside them. He also pointed out that federal appeals courts disagree on related questions, including whether another available remedy, such as the Bureau of Prisons’ own complaint program, means a case should be treated as new. Nielsen’s side argues that program is an adequate alternative to a lawsuit.

Watanabe’s lawyer, Zachary Tripp, argued that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling should stand because the case involves the same Eighth Amendment right, the same kind of conduct and the same class of officers as Carlson. The Eighth Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment. The MacArthur Justice Center and the Prison Policy Initiative told the Court in a friend of the court brief that the complaint program existed before Carlson and does not work well in practice.

The Court granted the Solicitor General, the Trump administration’s lawyer before the justices, permission to take part in the argument as a friend of the court and to share time. The Court granted review on June 22, and a decision is expected in 2027. The outcome could shape whether people who say a federal officer violated their rights can ask a court for money damages.

Shop Poli Alert MerchShop all

Georgia Elected Keisha Tee$34Lame Duck Tee$34Grandma Marched For This Tee$34Selma Wasn’t That Long Ago Tee$34

Dee Dee Henderson

Dee Dee Henderson is a Poli Alert journalist covering national politics, elections and the policies that hit closest to home for Black communities, from voting rights and the economy to the courts. She reports the facts first and isn't afraid to say what they mean, and her commentary pieces are clearly labeled as opinion. Her midterm coverage breaks down deadlines, ballot measures and the races that will decide who holds power in Washington.

See Full Bio