The legal information institute has a definition of “constitutional tort” that says:
A constitutional tort is a violation of one’s constitutional rights by a government employee. The alleged constitutional violation creates a cause of action that is distinct from any otherwise available state tort remedy. “Constitutional tort” is a predominantly academic term originating in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Monroe v. Pape (1961), which held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a separate federal remedy for individuals suing state or municipal government officers who have violated their constitutional rights. The term is also used in the context of Bivens actions, which are lawsuits under federal common law for constitutional violations committed by federal government employees. As with common law torts, the usual remedy for constitutional torts is monetary damages.
While I think the definition is comparing § 1983 with “Bivens actions.” Are there specific laws regarding Bivens? It's not clear to me why there is such a distinction. I have followed the obvious links. Can anyone supply further reading regarding the range of torts that might fall under Bivens?
I gather assault by the FBI would fall under Bivens. But my research would be for other non-violent torts.
Does Bivens require that racial discrimination be alleged? Would doing so (without having specific proof when filing) be an advantage? I am assuming a relevant racial difference exists to support an allegation.