5 ms·
The Supreme Court rarely implies a cause of action for money damages. The inherent constitutional remedies are things like the fruit of the poisonous tree doctr
by bradleyjg 4y ago
The Supreme Court rarely implies a cause of action for money damages. The inherent constitutional remedies are things like the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine that forbids things found in an illegal search to be introduced at a criminal trial.
Because Congress created the cause of action, it can control its contours (whether QI is a reasonable interpretation of the statute is a different question.)
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoThis is a good point. I understand what you're saying. But it makes various rights toothless in all ways, since there's effectively no way to enforce them. For instance, how do you post facto enforce the third amendment without a tort claim? > Because Congress created the cause of action I've seen this rationale stated before, but in common law, and natural law before that ("natural" as in how it functions, not the political philosophy), didn't some of these causes of action pre-exist Congress, and thus should be grandfathered in as ninth amendment rights?
- bradleyjg 4y agoThis gets into the distinction between law and equity. It’s a pretty obscure topic for non-lawyers but the gist is that a court sitting in equity would almost never award damages. While the Supreme Court is a court of law and equity, the power to imply a cause of action stems from its inheritance of equity powers and so is limited by them as well. (This is all based on memory and so the details may be off.)