The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in Nielsen v. Watanabe, a case that tests the scope of civil liability for federal officers accused of constitutional violations.

The dispute centers on an Eighth Amendment claim brought by former federal prisoner Kekai Watanabe. He alleges that a nurse at a federal detention center denied him adequate medical care after he suffered a broken tailbone in an inmate attack. The Ninth Circuit allowed the suit to proceed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, the 1971 precedent permitting some damages actions against federal officials.

The Trump administration and supporting parties urged the Court to reject the claim. They argued that extending Bivens to prison medical disputes would invite frivolous litigation and hamper federal officers performing sensitive duties. Critics of broad Bivens remedies contend that Congress, not courts, should create causes of action against the government.

The case arrives amid heightened scrutiny of federal immigration enforcement. Complaints against ICE officers have increased as the agency steps up operations. Proponents of shielding officers say civil suits undermine morale and deter aggressive action against illegal immigration and related crimes. They point to internal disciplinary processes and criminal prosecutions as more appropriate accountability mechanisms.

Justice Clarence Thomas and other conservatives on the Court have repeatedly expressed skepticism toward Bivens expansions. In recent terms the justices have declined to recognize new Bivens claims in several contexts, citing separation of powers concerns and the availability of alternative remedies.

Plaintiffs and civil liberties groups counter that without Bivens, victims of egregious misconduct by federal agents would lack any meaningful redress. They note the case echoes Carlson v. Green, a 1980 decision that permitted a similar prison medical claim.

A ruling against the plaintiff could further narrow federal officer liability. Such an outcome would align with efforts to strengthen law enforcement tools in high-priority areas like border security. The Court is expected to issue its decision later in the term.