In the case of Davis v. Passman, Shirley Davis, a former congressional staffer, sued her employer Congressman Otto Passman for gender discrimination after he fired her solely because she was a woman. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Davis in 1978 stating that she had the right to sue under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause even though there was no specific law allowing such lawsuits at that time. This decision established an important precedent by recognizing "implied" causes of action - meaning individuals could sue for constitutional violations even if no statute specifically authorized such suits. It also affirmed that federal officials can be held personally liable for actions taken while performing their duties and significantly expanded legal protections against sex discrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for Davis v. Passman, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to allow a private cause of action under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. He argued that it was not within the Court’s jurisdiction to create new remedies and rights where Congress had not explicitly done so. Additionally, he contended that there were other existing legal avenues available for redress in this case such as state law or federal civil service regulations which should have been pursued instead of creating a constitutional claim. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential floodgates being opened by allowing individuals to sue government officials directly under constitutional provisions without statutory authorization from Congress.