Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

claims  were  pending  by 

those 
reporting  Boule’s 
“SMUGLER” license plate to the Washington Department 
of Licensing for referencing illegal conduct, and by contact-
ing the Internal Revenue Service and prompting an audit 
of Boule’s tax returns.  Ultimately, Boule’s FTCA claim was
denied  and,  after  a  year-long  investigation,  Border  Patrol
took no action against Agent Egbert for his alleged use of 
force or acts of retaliation.  Thereafter, Agent Egbert con-
tinued to serve as an active-duty Border Patrol agent. 

In January 2017, Boule sued Agent Egbert in his individ-
ual  capacity  in  Federal  District  Court,  alleging  a  Fourth
Amendment violation for excessive use of force and a First 
Amendment  violation  for  unlawful  retaliation.    Boule  in-
voked  Bivens  and  asked  the  District  Court  to  recognize  a
damages  action  for  each  alleged  constitutional  violation. 
The  District  Court  declined  to  extend  a  Bivens  remedy  to
Boule’s claims and entered judgment for Agent Egbert.  The 
Court  of  Appeals  reversed.  See  998  F. 3d  370,  385  (CA9 
2021).  Twelve judges dissented from the denial of rehear-
ing en banc.  See id., at 373 (Bumatay, J., dissenting); id., 
at 384 (Owens, J., dissenting); ibid. (Bress, J., dissenting).

We granted certiorari.  595 U. S. ___ (2021). 

II
  In Bivens, the Court held that it had authority to create
“a  cause  of  action  under  the  Fourth  Amendment”  against
federal  agents  who  allegedly  manacled  the  plaintiff  and
threatened his family while arresting him for narcotics vio-
lations.  403 U. S., at 397.  Although “the Fourth Amend-
ment does not in so many words provide for its enforcement 
by an award of money damages,” id., at 396, the Court “held 
that it could authorize a remedy under general principles of
federal jurisdiction,” Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7) 
(citing Bivens, 403 U. S., at 392).  Over the following decade, 
the Court twice again fashioned new causes of action under 
the Constitution—first, for a former congressional staffer’s