The case of Esther Hui, et al. v. Yanira Castaneda, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Francisco Castaneda, et al., 2009 revolved around a claim that federal and state officials violated an immigrant detainee's constitutional rights by denying him necessary medical care for cancer while in custody. The plaintiff was Yanira Castaneda, representing her deceased brother Francisco's estate who died from penile cancer after being denied treatment during his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She sued several individuals including Dr. Esther Hui under Bivens action - a lawsuit for damages when a federal officer who is acting in their official capacity allegedly violates the U.S constitution. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bivens' remedy did not extend to this situation because Congress had provided alternative remedies through legislation such as Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) which allows suits against government employees for negligence but does not allow suits against individual officers unless they were acting outside their scope of employment or with malice.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Esther Hui, et al. v. Yanira Castaneda argued that the majority's decision to allow a Bivens action (a lawsuit for damages when a federal officer who is acting in his or her official capacity allegedly violates the U.S. Constitution) against individual Public Health Service officers was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings by the Supreme Court. The dissenters believed that Congress had already provided an alternative remedy for such cases through the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows individuals to sue the United States government directly for damages caused by negligent acts of its employees, including Public Health Service officers. They also noted that allowing Bivens actions could potentially deter qualified individuals from public service due to fear of personal liability and litigation.