Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

582  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  13).    “[E]ven  a  single  sound 
reason to defer to Congress” is enough to require a court to 
refrain  from  creating  such  a  remedy.  Nestlé  USA,  Inc.  v. 
Doe, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 
6).  Put another way, “the most important question is who
should  decide  whether  to  provide  for  a  damages  remedy, 
Congress or the courts?”  Hernández, 589 U. S., at ___–___ 
(slip op., at 19–20) (internal quotation marks omitted).  If 
there is a rational reason to think that the answer is “Con-
gress”—as  it  will  be  in  most  every  case,  see  Ziglar,  582 
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 12)—no Bivens action may lie.  Our 
cases  instruct  that,  absent  utmost  deference  to  Congress’ 
preeminent  authority  in  this  area,  the  courts  “arrogat[e] 
legislative power.”  Hernández, 589 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 
5).

To inform a court’s analysis of a proposed Bivens claim, 
our  cases  have  framed  the  inquiry  as  proceeding  in  two 
steps.  See  Hernández,  589  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  7). 
First, we ask whether the case presents “a new Bivens con-
text”—i.e.,  is  it  “meaningful[ly]”  different  from  the  three 
cases  in  which  the  Court  has  implied  a  damages  action. 
Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 16).  Second, if a claim 
arises in a new context, a Bivens remedy is unavailable if
there are “special factors” indicating that the Judiciary is
at least arguably less equipped than Congress to “weigh the 
costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.” 
Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 12) (internal quotation 
marks omitted).  If there is even a single “reason to pause 
before applying Bivens in a new context,” a court may not
recognize  a  Bivens  remedy.  Hernández,  589  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(slip op., at 7).

While our cases describe two steps, those steps often re-
solve to a single question: whether there is any reason to
think  that  Congress  might  be  better  equipped  to  create  a 
damages remedy.  For example, we have explained that a 
new context arises when there are “potential special factors