In the case of Margaret Minneci et al. v. Richard Lee Pollard, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that federal prisoners cannot sue private prison employees for constitutional violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971). The plaintiff, Richard Lee Pollard, was a federal prisoner at a privately operated facility who alleged he received inadequate medical care after breaking his elbows during an accident at work within the prison. He sued several employees of the private company running the facility under Bivens which allows individuals to seek damages from federal officials for constitutional rights violations. However, in this case, it was determined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer that because state tort law provided adequate alternative remedies and given concerns about interfering with government contracts and policy-making decisions regarding prisons' operations and management; extending Bivens liability to these circumstances would be inappropriate.

In the dissenting opinion for Minneci v. Pollard, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that federal prisoners should have a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents when harmed by private prison employees acting under color of federal law. She contended that the majority's reliance on state tort law as an alternative remedy was misplaced because such laws often provide inadequate compensation and may not deter misconduct effectively. Furthermore, she pointed out that Congress had not explicitly precluded a Bivens action in these circumstances, suggesting its tacit acceptance of this judicially-created remedy. Lastly, she emphasized that constitutional rights would be undermined if their enforcement depended on state law which can vary widely across jurisdictions.