In the 1970 case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Webster Bivens claimed that federal agents violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his home without a warrant and arresting him without probable cause. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bivens, establishing an important precedent known as the "Bivens action." This allows individuals to sue federal government officials for violating their constitutional rights, even if no specific statute authorizes such lawsuits. The court held that when a federal officer violates constitutional protections, victims should have recourse to damages since there is no other remedy available under existing law. However, this ruling has been limited by subsequent decisions which established exceptions where alternative processes exist or special factors counsel against allowing such suits.

In the dissenting opinion for Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to allow a citizen to sue federal officers for damages related to constitutional violations was an overstep by the judiciary branch. He contended that it is Congress' role, not the Court's, to create new statutory rights and remedies. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on law enforcement effectiveness due to fear of personal liability among officers. Additionally, he pointed out that there were other existing legal avenues available for redress in such cases - namely through state courts or via congressional action - thus making this expansion unnecessary and potentially harmful.