A federal inmate cannot sue corrections officers for an alleged violent assault in a prison in Lee County Virginia in 2021, according to a Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The court rejected inmate Andrew Fields’ lawsuit seeking damages over allegations he was physically abused in solitary confinement.

The 53-year-old Fields contended guards used excessive force, including kicking and punching him and smashing his head into a concrete wall while he was restrained. His 2022 lawsuit named the Bureau of Prisons, the prison warden and prison officials, and claimed excessive force was used in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

A strict prison guard in uniform guards cells with prisoners in a maximum security prison. (Credit: Getty Images)

But officers denied the allegations, accusing Fields of assaulting them, which he disputed.

The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from cruel and unusual punishment, excessive bail, and excessive fines, basically protecting people from harsh treatment in the criminal justice system.

The justices held that prisoners can’t make an appeal for monetary damages under the Eighth Amendment.

Monday’s ruling is a disappointment for those seeking to hold prison officials accountable for violations of the constitution. It’s the court’s latest rejection of the so-called Bivens claims, according to reporting from The Hill, which allowed plaintiffs to sue federal officials for damages over violations of constitutional rights.

“For the past 45 years, this Court has consistently declined to extend Bivens to new contexts. We do the same here,” the justices wrote in an unsigned opinion with no dissents.

In 1971, the High Court allowed such a claim under a ruling known as Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents. In the decades since, the court has made it almost impossible to win a case under Bivens.

In the ruling, justices said if Fields’ case was allowed to continue it “could have negative systemic consequences for prison officials,” and that the inmate has other ways of vindicating his rights, according to NBC News.

However, U.S. Circuit Judge Roger Gregory argued in the majority opinion that Fields was not afforded that alternative option. “Fields lacked access to alternative remedies because prison officials deliberately thwarted his access to them,” the majority said.

Fields’ attorney Danny Zemel wasn’t happy with the justices’ decision.

“Forbidding courts from redressing a constitutional violation is wrong, and it is especially dangerous in this day and age to immunize federal executive officials from accountability for their actions,” Zemel said in a statement.

“Prison Guards are Not ‘Above the Law,’” an X user said, reacting to the ruling.

Another said the Bivens ruling is in “disfavor.” “There needs to be a statutory cause of action instead of expecting to succeed under Bivens. Congress should act to create the statutory cause of action to hold federal officers accountable.”

Several social media posters used stronger words to describe the ruling.

“No rights. No federal protections. Understand now?”

And this one: “So, the three ‘libruls’ on the Supreme Court, at least in public, are OK perpetuating the idea that prison officials can beat the s$#! out of inmates.”

Fields is now in a prison in Florida serving a sentence in on drugs and gun offenses.

The ruling reversed an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which had allowed Fields’ case to move forward. The Supreme Court has now sent the case back to the 4th Circuit.

‘Extremely Dangerous’: Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit from Man Who Says Guards Smashed His Head Into Concrete, Critics Say It Gives Officials Free Pass to ‘Beat the S#!t Out’ of Inmates