Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 17

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

grievances  from  “[a]ny  persons  wishing  to  lodge  a  com-
plaint.”  8 CFR §§287.10(a)–(b).  As noted, Boule took ad-
vantage of this grievance procedure, prompting a year-long 
internal investigation into Agent Egbert’s conduct.  See su-
pra, at 4–5. 

Boule  nonetheless  contends  that  Border  Patrol’s  griev-
ance process is inadequate because he is not entitled to par-
ticipate  and  has  no  right  to  judicial  review  of  an  adverse 
determination.3  But we have never held that a Bivens al-
ternative  must  afford  rights  to  participation  or  appeal. 
That is so because Bivens “is concerned solely with deter-
ring  the  unconstitutional  acts  of  individual  officers”—i.e., 
the focus is whether the Government has put in place safe-
guards to “preven[t]” constitutional violations “from recur-
ring.”  Malesko,  534  U. S.,  at  71,  74;  see  also  Meyer,  510 
U. S.,  at  485.  And,  again,  the  question  whether  a  given
remedy is adequate is a legislative determination that must
be left to Congress, not the federal courts.  So long as Con-
gress or the Executive has created a remedial process that 
it finds sufficient to secure an adequate level of deterrence,
the courts cannot second-guess that calibration by superim-
posing a Bivens remedy.  That is true even if a court inde-
pendently concludes that the Government’s procedures are
“not as effective as an individual damages remedy.”  Bush, 

—————— 

3 Boule  also  argues  that  Agent  Egbert  forfeited  any  argument  about 
Border Patrol’s grievance process because he did not raise the issue in 
the Court of Appeals.  We disagree.  Because recognizing a Bivens cause 
of action “is an extraordinary act that places great stress on the separa-
tion of powers,” Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (plural-
ity opinion) (slip op., at 7), we have “a concomitant responsibility” to eval-
uate any grounds that counsel against Bivens relief, Oliva v. Nivar, 973 
F. 3d  438,  443,  n. 2  (CA5  2020);  see  also  Elhady  v.  Unidentified  CBP 
Agents, 18 F. 4th 880, 884 (CA6 2021).  And, in any event, Agent Egbert 
has  consistently  claimed  that  alternative  remedies  foreclose  applying 
Bivens in this case.  Thus, under our precedents, he is “not limited to the 
precise arguments [he] made below.”  Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 
534 (1992).