Please read the opinion that I link above. There is no question but that the decision in the case is a correct one based on the limits of Supreme Court investiture of a person’s right to enforce a remedy for a governmental violation of liberty after the violation has occurred.
However, as a Judge in this case you would have a choice to make, if you thought the 4th and 5th Amendments should provide such a remedy, lest the protections become stripped of meaning. There are several possible choices here, by the way. I probably would have recognized the Bivens right as extending to this man in this situation because the FBI intended to use his coerced confession in a criminal proceeding, reading between the lines. But I would have stayed my Judgment pending Supreme Court review.
What would you have written?