Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 42

18 

EGBERT v. BOULE 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

(quoting Hernández, 589 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14)).  That 
reasoning,  the  Court  concludes,  “applies  here  with  full
force” because “national security is at issue.”  Ante, at 9–10. 
This is sheer hyperbole.  Most obviously, the Court’s con-
clusion that this case, which involves a physical assault by
a federal officer against a U. S. citizen on U. S. soil, raises 
“national  security”  concerns  does  exactly  what  this  Court
counseled against just four years ago.  Back then, the Court 
advised that “national-security concerns must not become a 
talisman  to  use  to  ward  off  inconvenient  claims—a  ‘label’ 
used to ‘cover a multitude of sins.’ ”  Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 20) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 
523 (1985)).  It explained that this “danger of abuse is even
more heightened given the difficulty of defining the security
interest in domestic cases.”  Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip 
op.,  at  20)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).  This  case 
does  not  remotely  implicate  national  security.    The  Court 
may wish it were otherwise, but on the facts of this case, its
effort to raise the specter of national security is mere sleight 
of hand. 

Nor is there any indication that Congress acted to deny a 
Bivens remedy for a case like this, which otherwise might
counsel hesitation.  See Bush, 462 U. S., at 368 (declining 
to “supplement” Congress’ existing scheme “with a new ju-
dicial remedy”).  Congress has not provided that federal law 
enforcement officers may enter private property near a bor-
der at any time or for any purpose.  Quite the contrary: Con-
gress has determined that immigration officers may enter 
“private lands” within 25 miles of an international border 
without  a  warrant  only  “for  the  purpose  of  patrolling  the 
border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United 
States.”  66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. §1357(a)(3).  This allowance 
is  itself  subject  to  exceptions:  Officers  cannot  enter  a 
“dwellin[g]” for immigration enforcement purposes without 
a  warrant.  Ibid.    Mere  proximity  to  a  border,  in  other 
words,  did  not  give  Agent  Egbert  greater  license  to  enter