opinion. Harlan particularly emphasized the special importance of constitutional rights. He presented that it was well-settled, even undeniable, that a suit for injunction based on a constitutional right had been long recognized in the Federal courts. However, a suit for damages should be as or more acceptable. Dissents Dissenting opinions were written by Chief Justice Burger and by Justices Black and Blackmun. Chief Justice Burger's dissent asserted that the decision was legislating an area that should be left to Congress. Justice Black basically agreed with Justice Burger and was worried about the growing docket. Justice Blackmun went a step further, saying the decision "opens the door for another avalanche of new federal cases". Subsequent case law In Davis v. Passman, , the Supreme Court upheld a Fifth Circuit opinion that held that even though there existed "an explicit congressional prohibition against judicial remedies for those in petitioner's position", the Court declined to infer that Congress also sought to foreclose an alternative remedy directly under the Fifth Amendment. Stafford v. Briggs, In Carlson v. Green, , the court held that a damages remedy would be available despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right, unless: (1) Congress had provided an alternative remedy which it "explicitly declared to be a substitute for recovery directly under the Constitution"; or (2) the defendant could demonstrate any "special factors counseling hesitation". Chappell v. Wallace, In Bush v. Lucas, , the Court refrained from implying a Bivens remedy due to the availability of alternative remedies for the first time. Mitchell v. Forsyth, Anderson v. Creighton, United States v. Stanley, Schweiker v. Chilicky, McCarthy v. Madigan, In FDIC v. Meyer, , and Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, , the court held that the fundamental logic supporting Bivens was to deter constitutional violations by individual officers, not federal agencies. Farmer v. Brennan, Saucier v. Katz, Hartman v. Moore, In Wilkie v. Robbins, , the court held that the difficulty inherent in "defining limits to legitimate zeal on the public's behalf in situations where hard bargaining is to be expected" was a "special factor" that counseled against the availability of a Bivens remedy. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Hui v. Castaneda, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, In Minneci v. Pollard, , the court denied a Bivens action for Eighth Amendment violations committed by employees of a private prison because "state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions … that provide both