Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

8 

EGBERT v. BOULE 

Opinion of the Court 

that  previous  Bivens  cases  did  not  consider.”  Ziglar,  582 
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 16).  And we have identified several 
examples of new contexts—e.g., a case that involves a “new 
category of defendants,” Malesko, 534 U. S., at 68; see also 
Ziglar,  582  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  11)—largely  because 
they represent situations in which a court is not undoubt-
edly better  positioned than Congress to create a damages 
action.  We have never offered an “exhaustive” accounting 
of such scenarios, however, because no court could forecast 
every  factor  that  might  “counse[l]  hesitation.”    Id.,  at  ___ 
(slip  op.,  at  16).  Even  in  a  particular  case,  a  court  likely
cannot predict the “systemwide” consequences of recogniz-
ing a cause of action under Bivens.  Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 13).  That uncertainty alone is a special factor 
that  forecloses  relief.  See  Hernández  v.  Mesa,  885  F. 3d 
811, 818 (CA5 2018) (en banc) (“The newness of this ‘new 
context’ should alone require dismissal”). 

Finally,  our  cases  hold  that  a  court  may  not  fashion  a 
Bivens remedy if Congress already has provided, or has au-
thorized the Executive to provide, “an alternative remedial 
structure.”  Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14); see also 
Schweicker, 487 U. S., at 425.  If there are alternative re-
medial structures in place, “that alone,” like any special fac-
tor, is reason enough to “limit the power of the Judiciary to
infer a new Bivens cause of action.”  Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 14).2  Importantly, the relevant question is not
whether  a  Bivens  action  would  “disrup[t]”  a  remedial 
scheme, Schweicker, 487 U. S., at 426, or whether the court 
“should provide for a wrong that would otherwise go unre-
dressed,” Bush, 462 U. S., at 388.  Nor does it matter that 

—————— 

2 Congress  also  may  preclude  a  claim  under  Bivens  v.  Six  Unknown 
Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), against federal officers if it 
affirmatively forecloses one.  “Even in circumstances in which a Bivens 
remedy is generally available, an action under Bivens will be defeated if 
the  defendant  is  immune  from  suit,”  Hui  v.  Castaneda,  559  U. S.  799, 
807 (2010), and Congress may grant such immunity as it sees fit.