This Court has stated that individual unconstitutional acts "are difficult to address except by way of damages actions after the fact," and that "forums of defense," together with fee-shifting provisions, are an insufficient "patchwork" to cause "the Judiciary to stay its Bivens hand." Here, did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that a forum of defense and an unrelated fee shifting statute preclude a Bivens remedy?

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that a forum of defense and an unrelated fee-shifting statute preclude a Bivens remedy