context: .Our disposition does not require that we decide whether the district court properly implied a Bivens-type action for damages directly from the fifth amendment's takings clause. Resolution of this question would involve an analysis whether (a) the Tucker Act is an equally effective remedy, and (b) Congress intended the Tucker Act to supplant other remedies.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: federal employment relationship "is a special consideration which counsels hesitation in inferring a Bivens remedy"
citation_a.sentence: See also Bush v. Lucas, 647 F.2d 573, 576-77 (5th Cir.1981) (federal employment relationship “is a special consideration which counsels hesitation in inferring a Bivens remedy”), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 102 S.Ct. 3481, 73 L.Ed.2d 1365 (1982).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 446 U.S. 14, 18-23
citation_b.parenthetical: also noting necessity for inquiry into "special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress"
citation_b.sentence: See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18-23, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 1471-74, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (also noting necessity for inquiry into “special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress”) (citation omitted).