Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

14 

EGBERT v. BOULE 

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

claims in every sphere of legitimate governmental action af-
fecting property interests” and “across this enormous swath 
of potential litigation would hover the difficulty of devising 
a . . . standard that could guide an employee’s conduct and 
a  judicial  factfinder’s  conclusion.”    551  U. S.,  at  561.    Be-
cause of the “elusiveness of a limiting principle” for claims
like  the  landowner’s,  id.,  at  561,  n. 11,  the  Court  decided 
that courts were ill equipped to tailor an appropriate rem-
edy, id., at 562. 

Boule’s First Amendment retaliation claim raises similar 
concerns.  Unlike  the  constitutional  rights  this  Court  has
recognized  as  cognizable  under  Bivens,  First  Amendment 
retaliation  claims  could  potentially  be  brought  against 
many different federal officers, stretching substantially be-
yond  the  “common  and  recurrent  sphere  of  law  enforce-
ment” to reach virtually all federal employees.  Ziglar, 582 
U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  11).  Under  such  circumstances, 
this Court’s precedent holds that “ ‘evaluat[ing] the impact
of a new species of litigation’ ” on the efficiency of civil ser-
vice is a task for Congress, not the courts.  Wilkie, 551 U. S., 
at 562; see also Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 13).  I 
therefore concur in the judgment as to the Court’s reversal
of  the  Court  of  Appeals’  conclusion  that  Boule’s  First
Amendment Bivens action may proceed, not for the reasons 
the Court identifies, ante, at 13–16, but because precedent 
requires it. 

III 
If  the  legal  standard  the  Court  articulates  to  reject
Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim sounds unfamiliar, that 
is  because  it  is.    Just  five  years  after  circumscribing  the 
standard for allowing  Bivens  claims to proceed, a restless
and newly constituted Court sees fit to refashion the stand-
ard  anew  to  foreclose  remedies  in  yet  more  cases.  The 
measures  the  Court  takes  to  ensure  Boule’s  claim  is  dis-
missed are inconsistent with governing precedent.