With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". evaluating whether alternative, potential remedies preclude a Bivens action, the Court has consistently stressed that only remedies crafted by Congress can have such a preclusive effect. For example, in Carlson, the Court held that where “defendants show that Congress has provided an alternative remedy which it explicitly declarefs] to be a substitute for recovery directly under the Constitution and view[s] as equally effective,” no Bivens remedy is available. Carlson, 446 U.S. at 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468. Likewise, in Bush v. Lucas, the Court held that the Bivens remedy for an alleged First Amendment violation was precluded by an “elaborate remedial system that has been constructed step by step” by Congress. 462 U.S. at 388, 103 S.Ct. 2404; see Schweiker, 487 U.S. at 425, 108 S.Ct. 2460 (<HOLDING>). In Malesko, however, the Court implicitly

A: holding that in light of the comprehensive administrative scheme created by congress to resolve taxrelated disputes individual agents of the irs are also not subject to bivens actions
B: recognizing a bivens remedy for undocumented immigrants who were subjects of a raid by federal immigration officials reasoning that if a bivens remedy were precluded the present plaintiffs would have no forum in which to seek a remedy for the defendants alleged constitutional violations
C: holding that a remedial scheme created by congress even if incapable of addressing all of plaintiffs injuries precluded a bivens action
D: holding that a bivens cause of action cannot be maintained against a federal agency
C.