The U.S. Supreme Court case Schweiker et al. v. Chilicky et al., 1987, revolved around the issue of whether individuals who were wrongfully denied Social Security disability benefits could sue for damages beyond the wrongly withheld benefits themselves (such as emotional distress). The plaintiffs had their Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits terminated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services but later reinstated after lengthy administrative proceedings, during which they suffered financial and emotional hardships due to lack of income support. The court ruled in favor of Schweiker (the government), stating that while it acknowledged errors made in terminating these benefits, Congress did not intend for additional remedies beyond backpay when such mistakes occurred. It was held that if a comprehensive legislative scheme like social security provides meaningful safeguards against wrongful denials or terminations, even if those safeguards do not fully compensate for all injuries sustained by claimants due to erroneous benefit denials or terminations, there is no authorization impliedly given to award additional damages under Constitution's Due Process Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Schweiker v. Chilicky, Justice Blackmun argued that Congress had not provided an adequate remedy for constitutional violations in Social Security disability benefit cases. He disagreed with the majority's view that Bivens remedies should be limited to certain circumstances and believed it was necessary to provide a cause of action for damages when other remedies were insufficient. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on Bush v. Lucas as precedent because it involved different issues related to federal employment law rather than social security benefits. In his view, this case represented an instance where individuals who suffered from wrongful termination of their benefits had no meaningful legal recourse due to bureaucratic errors or misconducts by government officials.