constitutional rights. However, not all Constitutional violations give rise to a Bivens cause of action. Thus far the Supreme Court has recognized Bivens claims for violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's equal protection component of due process, and the Eighth Amendment. Harlow v. Fitzgerald The modern test for qualified immunity was established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982). Prior to Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the U.S. Supreme Court granted immunity to government officials only if: (1) the official believed in good faith that their conduct was lawful, and (2) the conduct was objectively reasonable. However, determining an official's subjective state of mind (i.e. did they have a good faith belief that their action was lawful) required a trial, often by jury. Concerns over allowing suits to go this far deterred officials from performing their duties, "[diverted] official energy from pressing public issues, and [deterred] able citizens from acceptance of public office", the Supreme Court handed down the current rule for qualified immunity: "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Therefore, the application of qualified immunity no longer depends upon an official's subjective state of mind, but on whether or not a reasonable person in the official's position would have known their actions were in line with clearly established legal principles. Saucier v. Katz In Saucier v. Katz, military officers Saucier and Parker were warned of possible protests during a speech from Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. When Katz began putting up a banner in defense of animal rights, Saucier detained Katz in his military van. Katz sued because he felt his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Saucier, due to qualified immunity. The Supreme Court held that "the ruling on qualified immunity requires an analysis not susceptible of fusion with the question whether unreasonable force was used in making the arrest." In other words, the analysis applied to claims of excessive force is not the same as the analysis applied to the merits of the claim. The Court's decision in this case provides a two-step inquiry into claims brought against a government official: first, whether the official's actions violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiff, and second, whether those rights were clearly established at the time